JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA) REPUBLIC OF TURKEY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTRY (MEF)
THE MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED REHABILITATION IN CORUH RIVER IN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX
JANUARY, 2004
PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL RECS INTERNATIONAL INC.
ExchangeRate (August, 2003) US$ 1.00 = TL 1,500,000 TL 1,000,000 = US$ 0.67 US$ 1.00 = Yen 120
THE MASTER PLAN STUDY ON PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED REHABILITATION IN CORUH RIVER IN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX
CONTENTS
A Natural Conditions and Soil Conservation B Forest Resources and Forest Management C Socio-Economic Conditions D Agriculture E Livestock and Rangeland Management F Institution G Environmental Considerations H Remote Sensing and GIS I Project Monitoring and Evaluation J Micro-Catchment Planning and the Master Plan
A. Natural Conditions and Soil Conservation CONTENTS
A.1 INTRODUCTION A1.1 The Purpose of this Working Paper A- 1 A1.2 Field Studies A- 1 A1.3 Data Collection A- 2 A1.4 Responsible State Agencies A- 2 A1.5 Forest Villages and Soil Conservation A- 2
A.2 NATURAL CONDITIONS IN THE CORUH RIVER CATCHMENT A2.1 Topography A- 4 A2.2 Climate A- 8 A2.3 Geology A-12 A2.4 Hydrology A-17 A2.5 Soils A-20 A2.6 Land Capability A-27 A2.7 Soil Erosion A-29 A2.8 Correlations between Slopes, Geology, Soils, Land Capability and Soil Erosion in the Coruh River Catchment A-38 A2.9 Dams and Sedimentation A-41
A.3 ISSUES, POLICIES, STRATEGIES, MEASURES, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOIL CONSERVATION IN THE CORUH RIVER CATCHMENT A3.1 Issues and Policies A-45 A3.2 Strategies A-48 A3.3 Measures for Implementation A-49 A3.4 Constraints and Opportunities for Soil Conservation A-50 A3.5 Soil Conservation and Landscape Rehabilitation A-51 A3.6 The Status of Soil Erosion in the Six Selected Micro-Catchments A-52
A.4 PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF EFFECTIVE SOIL CONSERVATION A4.1 Causes and Impacts of Natural and Accelerated Soil Erosion A-67 A4.2 Soil Conservation Strategies: Control of Water Movement and Control of Plant Cover A-69 A4.3 Participation in Soil Conservation by Villagers A-70 A4.4 Erosion Control Measures A-74 A4.5 Objective Measurements of the Benefits of Erosion Control Measures A-74
A.5 LAND MANAGEMENT AND SOIL CONSERVATION
A5.1 A Decision-Making Methodology for Rehabilitation of Soil Erosion in the Coruh River Catchment A-75 A5.2 Structures and Costs for Control and Rehabilitation of Soil Erosion A-82 A5.3 Rangeland Rehabilitation by Farmer Participation A-85 A5.4 The Sustainability of Interventions A-86
A.ANNEXES: A.ANNEX.1 Distribution of Slope Classes by Area (ha) and Percentage in MCs A.ANNEX.2 Geological Types by Area (km2) in each MC A.ANNEX.3 Geological Types by Percentage of each MC A.ANNEX.4 Main Soil Classes, Areas (km2) A.ANNEX.5 Main Soil Classes (Percentage of Area) A.ANNEX.6 Land Capability by Area (ha) A.ANNEX.7 Land Capability by Percentage of each MC A.ANNEX.8 Soil Erosion Areas (ha) and Percentage of each MC in the Four Erosion Classes
A.1 INTRODUCTION
A.1.1 The Purpose of this Working Paper
This Working Paper presents and discusses information relevant to soil conservation in the Coruh River watershed (catchment). The natural conditions are first outlined (Section 2), leading to discussion of several significant issues and strategies for soil conservation in the catchment (Section 3). Section 4 presents some principles and practices for soil conservation which give useful guidelines when considering land management in relation to soil conservation (Section 5).
The Working Paper is not intended to be a comprehensive report on all aspects of soil conservation in the Coruh River catchment, but it provides passages of text suitable for inclusion in the Master Plan.
While the title of the Study is “The Master Plan Study on Participatory Watershed Rehabilitation in Coruh River in the Republic of Turkey”, it should be noted that in this Working Paper the following usage of the terms ‘watershed’ and ‘catchment’ is preferred by this Consultant and by counterpart officers from Orman Bakanligi: • a ‘watershed’ is, strictly speaking, the term used to denote the boundary of a catchment, and delineates the points or the line at which rain after falling may then flow either into the catchment under consideration, or into the adjacent catchment; • the Coruh River watershed (Turkish: Su Havzasi) represents the boundary of the entire catchment for the Coruh River, which is approximately 2 million hectares in area; • the Coruh River catchment has been divided into six Sub-Catchments (SCs) (Turkish: Alt Havza), ranging in area from about 180,000 to 652,000 hectares; and • the Coruh River catchment has been divided into 63 Micro-Catchments (MCs) (Turkish: Micro Havza), ranging in area from about 12,000 to as much as 80,000 hectares, but averaging 25,000-38,000 in each MC.
A.1.2 Field Studies
The Consultant, together with members of the Study Team, undertook field inspections and village discussions for approximately 3 weeks in and around the Coruh River catchment from 20 October to 9 November 2002, and approximately 6 weeks from 10 June to 18 July 2003. Numerous discussions were held with staff of several State agencies, of course including many staff of the MEF in several centres. Staff of the NGO TEMA explained their activities with five villages in the Bayburt area. The Consultant is very grateful to all these respondents for their assistance in explaining numerous aspects of soil conservation in the Coruh River catchment.
A - 1
During the first mission, perhaps two-thirds of the entire Coruh River catchment was viewed from main and subsidiary roads. Several forest villages were visited and some exploratory discussions held. Numerous examples of erosion control activities were inspected and assessed. During the second mission, attention focused on the natural conditions in the selected 6 MCs.
A.1.3 Data Collection
Data in the form of published and unpublished reports, maps and tabular material has been collected from numerous sources in Ankara, Erzurum, Artvin, Bayburt and elsewhere. A wide range of maps of catchment attributes was prepared for processing in the GIS. The GIS produced several maps of individual attributes superimposed on the agreed catchment base map with its MCs, together with computer-derived tabulations of the areas and percentage proportions of those attributes according to their distribution among MCs. Numerous discussions with many people in a wide range of agencies and in the villages provided facts, opinions and guidance on soil conservation and related topics. The quality of the data and other information has been assessed and cross-checked where possible.
A.1.4 Responsible State Agencies
The Study Team has been working with the participation and assistance of counterpart officers from the General Directorate for Reforestation and Erosion Control in the MEF (AGM). AGM is the main State agency responsible for assessing and treating soil erosion in areas under its management within the Coruh River catchment. The State Water Works (DSI: Devlet Su Isleri) has prepared comprehensive plans for the development of hydraulic engineering structures (dams, tunnels, intakes and other structures) on the Coruh River and some of its tributaries, and this agency is vitally concerned about the possibility that the functional lifespan of such structures may be greatly reduced by the accumulation of suspended sediments and bedloads in the Coruh River and its tributaries.
A.1.5 Forest Villages and Soil Conservation
Many parts of the Coruh River catchment exhibit extremely steep slopes, and erodible rocks and soils. The catchment is subjected to very harsh climates. In most of the catchment the annual rainfall is low (<500 mm) and the rain tends to fall in short storms of high intensity. Winters are intensely cold, with heavy snow. In Summer the temperatures are relatively high and humidities and rainfall low, while in Spring heavy snowpacks can melt quickly to produce rapid runoff from poorly-protected soils with low infiltration rates, and consequently severe torrent flows down steep slopes. Therefore, in most of the Coruh River catchment it will always be difficult to maintain a self-sustaining ground cover of grasses and trees for erosion prevention, even in the absence of grazing and other pressures.
A - 2
Under the prevailing natural conditions of climate, slopes, geology and soils, the natural (geologic) rates of erosion have always been and will remain high in much of the catchment. However, the high rates of natural erosion have been exacerbated during the past decades by very high rates of accelerated erosion in many places.
Over many years, the forest villagers have cleared forests for fuelwood, animal fodder and timber, have over-grazed the rangelands and have converted rangelands to arable fields on steep slopes. They have been the major (but not the only) agents responsible for initiating and exacerbating accelerated soil erosion within many parts of the Coruh River catchment. In addition, the forest harvesting policies and practices of the Ministry may also have contributed to an unsustainable level of forest exploitation and consequent degradation of natural forest conditions and soils.
Villagers have cleared forests in an attempt to obtain desperately needed arable land, although it is often of poor quality and high erodibility. Rangelands have been treated as “a common good” which supplies free grazing, even if this eventually results in soil degradation and low pasture productivity which seriously affect all the participants. Villagers have been forced by their poverty and their urgent needs for pastures and new arable land to exploit the natural resources without restraint and with little regard to the sustainability of their actions. There are no effective penalties for over-grazing, and there are no effective rewards or incentives for any individual villager to refrain voluntarily from over-grazing. Therefore, economic pressures encourage each villager to seek to obtain the maximum personal advantage from the common natural resources every day, at least until the effort required to exploit the natural resources exceeds the value obtained from them. While the villagers can be blamed for these historical trends and consequences, the fact that these pressures occurred in the past and are still occurring is not very helpful in considering future rehabilitation of natural resources and maintenance of village livelihoods.
It must be recognized that, in reality, the villagers have always been the actual “managers” of the local natural resources, despite the efforts and intentions of the forestry and other Government agencies, and despite the legal status of the lands on which the resources occur. They will remain the real managers of the natural resources. Any strategies and tactics (project activities, or development instruments) for rehabilitation and natural resource management proposed in the Master Plan for sustainable rehabilitation and management of the Coruh River catchment will have to recognize the important managerial role of the villagers. Furthermore, the villagers will not cooperate in any meaningful way with any proposed tactics for rehabilitation and natural resource management unless they are convinced that this will be in their own best interests. Foremost among these interests is the need for immediate day-to-day income from income-generating activities, most of which will continue to be agriculturally-based. Therefore, the strategies and tactics proposed in the Master Plan must always include measures (activities) which take account of the villagers’ needs for daily income. If it is proposed to limit or prohibit any agricultural activity, such as access to forests
A - 3
or rangeland, then any consequent loss of income to villagers must be compensated for by some other activity which will produce equivalent (or better) income.
These considerations are highly relevant to the issues and strategies for soil conservation discussed in Section 3. The Master Plan must address the serious challenge of deciding how forest villagers can be encouraged to act as voluntary and responsible land managers in protecting and rehabilitating the natural resources of the catchment from which they derive their livelihoods. The task is far too big for any Government agency – the only solution which has any chance of success is to “recruit” the forest villagers as trained and concerned land managers.
A.2 NATURAL CONDITIONS IN THE CORUH RIVER CATCHMENT
A.2.1 Topography
(1) Introduction
Much of the Coruh River catchment is notable for its rugged topography and beautiful scenery which, combined with some areas of impressive forests and the potential for recreational use of parts of the Coruh River, have provided numerous venues for local and international tourism. Trekking, hunting, rafting, viewing wildlife and other recreations all possess development potential, largely based on the natural resources.
There have always been high rates of natural erosion in parts of the Coruh River catchment, which is partly why the area has such steep topography. However, the steep topography also exacerbates the serious potential for accelerated soil erosion if the land is mismanaged. Unfortunately, there has been considerable mismanagement over long periods, principally through over-grazing and poor forest management by villagers and other participants.
(2) Data
The available information about the topography of the Coruh River catchment is summarized in Figure 3.1-1, Table 2.1 and Annex 1. The data was derived from computerized analysis of remote-sensed images in the Study GIS. There are six slope classes. Information about the gentler slope classes is important for understanding the potential for small-scale irrigation, but is less important for understanding the topography of the broader landscape. In the discussion below, Slope Classes 1 to 4 (SC1 to SC4) are SC1 = 0-12%, SC2 = 12-30%, SC3 = 30-45% and SC4 = more than 45%.
(3) Discussion
A - 4
Figure 3.1-1, Table 2.1 and Annex 1 clearly indicate the spatial distribution of different slope classes. Artvin Province is much more mountainous than the other two Provinces, although they also have some localized very steep areas. Table 2.1 includes the data for slope distribution in the six MCs (in five of the Sub-Catchments) which were selected for detailed study.
The Sub-Catchments and their Micro-Catchments (MCs) have the following characteristic topographic features:
• Berta Sub-Catchment. Most of the MCs have a mean slope of about 25%, with SC2 the most common. Five of the seven MCs have significant proportions of land in SC4, with BT-06 the most mountainous. Two of the 7 MCs have about 30% of flat (SC1) land (BT- 03 and BT-04). The combined proportions of SC3 plus SC4 are about 40% on average, and about 75% in BT-06. • Lower Coruh Sub-Catchment. Most of the MCs have a mean slope of about 33%, with SC3 the most common (about 40% of the area). Most of the 7 MCs have about 30% of SC4. There is very little flat land (SC1) in the Sub-Catchment (the mean is 7%). The combined proportions of SC3 plus SC4 are about 60% on average, with nearly 75% of LC-01 in the steepest lands. • Middle Coruh Sub-Catchment. This Sub-Catchment is generally steep to very steep, with about 65% of the land in SC3 and SC4 on average. The proportion of SC4 in most MCs is about 30%, with one MC (MC-09) at 36.2%. Overall, there is only about 7% of flat land in the Sub-Catchment. Some MCs have about 70% of land in the two steepest classes. • Oltu Sub-Catchment. This Sub-Catchment has 16 MCs, with a remarkably high proportion of flat land (averaging 35.1%). Conversely, there is only 6.5% of SC4 on average, although OL-13 has 29.4% in SC3 and 26.4% in SC4. • Tortum Sub-Catchment. On average, the Sub-Catchment has about 62% of land less than 30% slope, and one MC (TR-02) has about 80% of this land. One MC (TR-06) is particularly steep, with about 58% in SC3 and SC4 combined. • Upper Coruh Sub-Catchment. This Sub-Catchment has the least steep land, on average, with only about 23% in SC3 and SC4 combined. UC-17, on the northern border of the Sub-Catchment, has about 67% of its land in these two classes. The proportion of SC1 is 37% on average, with some MCs (UC-06 and UC-07) having about 70% and 61% respectively. Thirteen of the 17 MCs in this Sub-Catchment have more than 15% of their land at slopes less than 6%, which are probably suitable for irrigation. UC-06 has nearly 50% of this land, and UC-07, UC-08, UC-09 and UC-11 have more than 25% of these gentle slopes.
(4) Summary of Findings
A - 5
1. The steepest land in the Coruh River catchment is concentrated in the three northeastern Sub-Catchments – Berta, Lower Coruh and Middle Coruh. The area around the Coruh River between Yusefeli and Artvin is particularly steep. 2. The most subdued topography is found in the south and west of the catchment, notably in Oltu, Tortum and Upper Coruh Sub-Catchments. 3. Upper Coruh Sub-Catchment has the least steep land, on average, in the Coruh River catchment, and many of the MCs have high proportions of land at slopes less than 6%, which are probably suitable for irrigation.
A - 6
Table A.2.1 Distribution of slope classes by area (ha) and percentage in MCs
Sub- over Catchment Name Total Area 0-2% 2-6% 6-12% 12-30% 30-45% 45% 0-2% 2-6% 6-12% 12-30% 30-45% over 45% of MC (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) BT-04 Berta (Savsat) 18,518 479 1,880 3,155 8,991 3,046 967 2.6 10.2 17.0 48.6 16.4 5.2 Sub-total 228,030 3,426 12,867 24,281 91,347 62,905 33,204 1.5 5.6 10.6 40.1 27.6 14.6 Lower Coruh Sub-total 177,693 1,239 4,238 7,020 51,426 68,612 45,159 0.7 2.4 4.0 28.9 38.6 25.4 MC-03 Middle Coruh (Yusufeli) 21,554 186 656 1,188 8,288 6,976 4,260 0.9 3.0 5.5 38.5 32.4 19.8 Sub-total 259,022 1,353 6,028 10,364 69,142 99,952 72,184 0.5 2.3 4.0 26.7 38.6 27.9 OL-04 Oltu (Oltu) 38,463 2,003 3,989 5,112 16,318 8,296 2,745 5.2 10.4 13.3 42.4 21.6 7.1 Sub-total 501,260 31,444 56,598 87,846 215,319 77,706 32,347 6.3 11.3 17.5 43.0 15.5 6.5 Tortum TR-06 (Uzundere) 30,684 330 1,138 1,760 9,315 10,058 8,083 1.1 3.7 5.7 30.4 32.8 26.3
A - 7 Sub-total 203,035 7,269 17,333 26,896 75,995 47,699 27,843 3.6 8.5 13.2 37.4 23.5 13.7 UC-03 Bayburt) 21,873 1,286 1,867 2,372 8,953 5,540 1,855 5.9 8.5 10.8 40.9 25.3 8.5 Upper Coruh UC-14 (Ispir) 31,167 535 1,471 3,432 13,465 8,515 3,749 1.7 4.7 11.0 43.2 27.3 12.0 Sub-total 651,814 65,739 77,627 92,556 262,065 115,965 37,862 10.1 11.9 14.2 40.2 17.8 5.8 Others 665 Total 2,020,855 110,470 174,691 248,963 765,293 472,838 248,599 5.5 8.6 12.3 37.9 23.4 12.3 Source: remote sensed data processed by the GIS
A.2.2 Climate
(1) Introduction
Some details of the climatic features of the Study Area are provided in this Section.
(2) Data
Table A.2.2 gives detailed climatic information for several stations within and just outside the Study Area. The stations are well distributed within the Study Area, and give representative information for most of the Sub-Catchments.
(3) Discussion
Major features of the climates at these stations include:
• Artvin. The lowest elevation station, and not as cold as the others, with only 18 days of frost per year. Artvin station records the highest rainfall of all stations, at 660 mm/year. The parts of the Study Area north and east of Artvin town, towards the Black Sea and the Georgian border, will have higher annual rainfall but there are few reliable records. • Erzurum. The city is at high altitude, and is renowned for its very low temperatures. There are 154 days of frost/year and the mean annual temperature is only 60C. The minimum temperatures from November to March are around –30oC. Conversely, from June to September the maximum temperature is about 34oC. The average rainfall is 460 mm/yr, much of which falls as snow in winter on 112 days/yr. • Bayburt. Even though it is only a little lower than Erzurum, the average minimum temperature is much higher than Erzurum, at –11.4oC with 36 days of frost. The average annual rainfall is 426 mm. • Yusufeli. This area has a very harsh climate. The annual rainfall is only about 300 mm, with very high temperatures from April to October and rather low temperatures in winter. • Tortum. The average annual rainfall is 434.9 mm. The mean maximum and minimum temperatures are 35.4oC and –20.8oC respectively. There are 125 days of frost/yr. • Oltu. The average annual rainfall is 382.3 mm. The average annual temperatures are very similar to those at Tortum.
Most of the Study Area has harsh climates, with generally very low temperatures and heavy snow in winter and rather high temperatures in summer, especially at Yusufeli. Except in the vicinity of Artvin, the rainfall is generally very low, again especially at Yusufeli. Except in the vicinity of Artvin, the climatic conditions are not conducive to the growth of highly productive forests. The conditions for pasture growth in the rangelands are obviously quite difficult, and the growing seasons will be short. The climatic conditions strongly influence soil erodibility and soil erosion in at least two ways:: firstly by discouraging (or at least not
A - 8
encouraging) vigorous forest and pasture growth and the maintenance of the highest feasible vegetative cover; and secondly by producing occasional high intensity storms falling onto bare ground. When the rain falls on steep, gullied, bare terrain most of it will produce torrent runoff with very high erosive power.
(4) Summary of Findings
1. Most of the Coruh River catchment has harsh climates, with very low and high temperatures in winter and summer respectively, and low annual rainfalls with occasional high intensity storms which exacerbate soil erosion and torrents in steep gullies. 2. The area around Yusufeli has a particularly harsh climate. The annual rainfall is only about 300 mm, with very high temperatures from April to October and rather low temperatures in winter. 3. The harsh climates predispose to short growing seasons, and difficult conditions for plant growth and rehabilitation of forests and rangelands.
A - 9
Table A.2.2 Detailed climatic information for several stations within and just outside the Study Area
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual Period ARTVIN Observation period:1932-1990 Latitude:41 11'N Longitude:41 49'E Elevation:628 m Average temp. (oC) 2.7 3.8 7.1 12.0 15.9 18.6 20.5 20.6 17.9 13.8 9.2 4.6 12.2 42 yrs Maximum temp. (oC) 6.2 8.2 12.4 18.0 22.0 24.2 25.5 25.9 23.7 19.5 13.6 7.9 25.9 42 yrs Minimum temp. (oC) -0.4 0.3 2.8 7.2 11.1 14.0 16.5 16.6 13.8 9.8 5.8 1.7 -0.4 42 yrs Humidity (%) 64 64 62 61 65 68 72 71 70 66 65 65 66 42 yrs Rainfall (mm) 85.1 71.4 55.6 53.1 50.3 46.8 27.0 25.8 35.1 55.6 70.0 87.1 662.9 42 yrs Evaporation (mm) - - 89.4 100.5 116.0 116.8 122.0 121.4 107.9 85.0 49.6 65.9 974.5 26 yrs Sunshine hours (min) 137 187 250 352 366 407 360 413 383 273 179 120 286 6 yrs Solar rad. (cal/cm2/min) 141.7 238.1316.7 401.3 450.1 487.7 453.8 441.8 363.8 246.9 158.9 118.7 318 6 yrs Days of frost 3.7 2.4 3.3 0.6 0.0 - - - - 0.4 2.6 5.4 18.4 42 yrs ERZURUM (1869 m) : : Average temp. (oC) -8.3 -7.0 -3.0 5.1 10.9 15.0 19.1 19.6 14.9 8.6 2.0 -5.1 6.0 42 yrs Maximum temp. (oC) 8.0 10.6 17.8 23.5 29.6 32.2 34.0 34.0 31.4 26.0 20.7 12.3 34.0 42 yrs o Minimum temp. ( C) -30.1 -27.5 -24.8 -18.5 -6.4 -3.2 1.8 1.2 -3.8 -12.0 -25.6 -28.0 -30.1 42 yrs A - 10 Rainfall (mm) 25.7 30.2 40.0 53.5 75.8 53.7 29.7 18.6 27.1 46.7 35.9 23.6 460.5 42 yrs 10mm
YUSUFELI (611 m) Average temp. (oC) 3.8 5.2 10.0 14.8 19.3 23.4 26.0 26.3 21.7 14.6 9.5 4.8 15.0 Maximum temp. (oC) 16.8 22.2 24.0 34.0 36.1 40.0 42.0 42.5 38.5 31.5 25.2 17.6 42.5 Rainfall (mm) 19.4 18.5 24.1 33.0 39.3 34.7 26.3 15.6 16.4 19.0 25.0 24.6 295.8 Days of frost 18.0 15.4 8.2 0.8 0.1 1.9 12.6 57.0 TORTUM Observation period:1954-1970 Latitude:40 18'N Longitude:40 34'E Elevation:1550 m Average temp. (oC) -3.4 -2.2 1.6 7.2 12.4 16.1 19.6 19.5 15.3 9.5 5.0 -0.6 8.3 18yrs Maximum temp. (oC) 10.0 11.4 16.0 25.1 28.1 32.0 35.4 35.0 30.5 26.4 20.0 12.2 35.4 18yrs Minimum temp. (oC) -18.5 -20.8-19.0 -12.7 -3.0 -3.3 5.5 6.0 -0.6 -8.0 -15.3 -19.0 -20.8 18yrs Humidity (%) 67 64 66 59 58 55 52 50 51 56 62 68 59 18yrs Rainfall (mm) 28.4 23.6 39.5 50.1 66.6 62.1 34.6 24.5 19.2 32.0 29.8 24.4 434.9 18yrs 10mm
Sources: Reports on soil fertility and fertilizer requirements in the Study Area, GDRS Statistical Yearbook of Turkey, 2001 OGM (Artvin, Erzurum)
A.2.3 Geology
(1) Introduction
The geological features of an area are important because they influence the topography, the types and fertilities of the soils which are developed from the weathering rocks, and the natural rates of weathering and landscape change.
(2) Data
The map showing the geology of the Coruh River catchment (Figure 3.2-2) was derived by the Study GIS from three geological maps prepared in the 1960s by MTA at scales of 1:500,000. These had been prepared from more detailed maps at 1:100,000 scale. However, late in the second period of field work the Consultant learned that the MTA has recently revised this map. The new (2002) geological map at 1:500,000 scale is much better, both in presentation and the Legend, than the earlier one from which Figure 3.2-2 was prepared. It has not been possible to amend the original data, but the new map has been studied and some observations drawn from it are presented below.
The Legends of the original maps contained numerous classes of rock types. Several of these, especially the less common types, have been combined into a total of about 24 classes for relative ease of mapping and comprehension. Nevertheless, the geological picture is still rather complicated.
Two other publications give authoritative information about the geology of the Study Area: Ali Gunduz (2001), Coruh Havzasi ve Artvin, and Atalay, I., Tetlik, M., Yilmaz, O., (1985) The Ecosystems of Northeastern Turkey, Ormancilik Arastirma Ensititusu Yayinlari Teknik Bulten Serisi No. 141.
Tables 2.3 and 2.4 and Annexes 2 and 3 show the geological types by both area (km2) and percentage in each MC. They were derived by the GIS from the basic data set, as depicted in the map.
(3) Discussion
In summary, the Eastern Black Sea Mountains have Paleozoic basement rocks, mostly micaceous quartz, granites and schists. These are overlain by younger (Cretacous to Eocene) rocks, mostly undifferentiated volcanics, basalts and limestones. The whole Coruh River catchment was subject to tectonic and volcanic deformations in the Triassic and Jurassic. Many of the rocks are densely faulted and folded, brittle and unstable, which promotes natural erosion at rapid rates. There are small scattered areas of alluvia and colluvia.
A - 12
Atalay et al. (1985) (p.33) give a simplified Legend for the rocks of the Study Area:
Geological Period Approximate Age Rock Types (m years ago) Quaternary (Pleistocene) Present – 1.8 Alluvia, colluvia, slope debris Pliocene-Quaternary Present - 5 Clay, marl, sand, gravel Miocene-Pliocene 1.8-24 Marly limestones Neogene 1.8 – 15 Conglomerates and breccia with volcanic materials Oligocene 24 – 34 Deposits containing gypsum, salt and alkali Eocene 34 – 55 Flysches containing basalts and gabbro. Flysches with sand and conglomerates Upper Cretaceous 65 - 98 Flysches containing volcanic rocks Cretaceous-Jurassic 65 – 205 Limestones Lower Mesozoic Various ages, since Ophiolites (peridotites, serpentines, gabbro, basalts about 205 Paleozoic 251 – 545 Quartzites, crystalline limestones, schists
At various times, granites, andesites, trachytes and basalt tuffs have been laid down.
In geomorphological terms, Atalay et al. (1985) list the features exhibited in various parts of the Coruh River catchment. They include very rugged and high mountainous terrains, undulating areas and basalt plateaux. There are Neogene volcanic plateaux and slightly undulating surfaces (now seen as the yayla rangelands), and volcanic cones. Other geologically recent features include dissected gullies, fault scarps, fossil surfaces, landslides, cuesta, flood and sedimentation areas, alluvia of many ages, swamps and meadows, fluvial terraces, dejection cones and fans, cliffs, incised valleys, epigenetic and antecedent valleys and numerous glacial features such as cirque lakes, valleys, knobs and moraines. Faults, anticlines, synclines and overthrusts may be commonly observed.
As stated above, the geological structure of the Coruh Rover catchment is very complicated, and becomes even more complicated at the scale of the MCs. Some of the general observations about the whole catchment which can be drawn from the Figure 3.2-2, Tables 2.3 and 2.4 and Annexes 2 and 3 include:
• The Study Area is dominated by volcanic rocks of various types, mostly of Cretaceous age (65 to 141 million years of age). There is a large area of granite and granodiorite in the northern section of the catchment, with related volcanic rocks west of Artvin. • Most of the middle course of the Coruh River, from near Bayburt to Yusufeli, has Eocene volcanics (34 to 55 million years). Downstream from Yusufeli the river runs through Palaeozoic (older than 250 million years) metamorphic rocks. • Another prominent area northwest of Tortum and also extending to parts of the eastern and northern boundaries of the catchment contains basalts and related rock types. • There are some areas of serpentines (ultrabasic rocks with high manganese contents) around Yusufeli and Narman. • The Oligocene-Miocene (5 to 55 million years) gypsiferous facies (rock types) around Narman are notable for their extremely eroded bare slopes.
A - 13
• There are some reasonably extensive Quaternary (less than 1.8 million years) deposits on flat or gently undulating plains west of Bayburt, for example near Aydintepe.
With respect to the individual MCs, specific observations drawn from a study of the new map include:
Area Map Rock Types symbols Berta Sub-Catchment (SC), Savsat Pn The eroded hills behind Kirecli are Paleocene clastic and Micro-Catchment (MC) carbonate rocks e 2-3 All the NW side of the MC is Upper Eocene volcanic and sedimentary rocks k2 The west side of the MC has Upper Cretaceous volanics, clastic and carbonate rocks m3plv Upper Miocene volcanic and sedimentary rocks Middle Coruh SC, Yusufeli MC k2 Almost all the MC is Upper Cretaceous clastic and carbonate rocks pn, e2-3, The Alanbasi area has very complex geology, with e1-2 Paleozoic clastic and carbonate rocks underlying Lower and Middle Eocene clastic rocks (continental in places) and in turn underlying Middle and Upper Miocene volcanic and sedimentary rocks Oltu SC, Oltu MC jk N of Tutmac the eroded hills are Jurassic-Cretaceous basic volcanic and sedimentary rocks. j1-2B, ev, Between Ozdere and Tutmac the oldest rocks are Lower e1-2 and Middle Jurassic basalts, andesites and spilites, overlain by Eocene undifferentiated volcanic and clastic rocks. j3-k1, e1-2, E of Basakli there are Upper Jurassic and Lower olv Cretaceous clastic and carbonate rocks. Along the stream there are younger Lower-Middle Eocene clastics. To the W of the village are Oligocene undifferentiated volcanics. jk, k3, e1-2, The geology of the area around Ballica, and especially olm1 around and W of Orcuk, is extremely complex. There are many different types of rocks and much faulting, which explains the instability of the area. A complex of volcanics, clastics, carbonate rocks and sedimentary rocks from Jurassic to Miocene ages is present. Q, olm1 Near Oltu town there are extremely eroded Quaternary alluvial fans and slope debris, together with Oligocene/Miocene evaporates and rocks. Tortum SC, Uzundere MC j3k1, k, pnv Most of the MC, at least around the selected Forest Villages, has Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous clastic and carbonate rocks and considerable pelagic limestone. Just E of Uzundere town there is an area of Paleocene (or Lower Eocene) undifferentiated acidic volcanic rocks. Upper Coruh SC, Bayburt MC k, j3m1 Gezkoy, Heybetepe and Masat have Lower Cretaceous pelagic limestones. Most the rest of the MC has Upper Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous pelagic limestones. Upper Coruh SC, Ispir MC y2, m1-2, The road to Gockoy passes through Carboniferous j3ki, k granitoids. The rolling rangelands around Numanpasa are on Lower/Middle Miocene evaporates and sedimentary rocks. The Durukoy and Kockoy areas have complicated geology, but are mostly UpperJurassic and Lower Cretaceous clastic and carbonate rocks, with volcanics in places. Korpukoy is nearly all Lower Cretaceous pelagic limestones.
A - 14
As previously stated, the geological features of an area are likely to influence:
• the susceptibility of the area to weathering and natural erosion; • the formation of soils from the different rocks; • the fertility of the soils; and • the rates of accelerated erosion.
In the case of the Coruh River catchment, the major control of natural rates of weathering and production of sediments and bedloads appears to be largely related to the types of rocks, the amount of faulting and the degree of stratification of the rocks. In the field numerous cases were seen where the exposed ends of steeply-dipping strata were providing copious debris to colluvial fans, while the faces of the strata were less weathered. These effects produce a characteristic jagged topography and different bedloads to the streams and rivers.
Any apparent correlations between the different rock types and the soils which are formed from them, and their susceptibility to soil erosion, are examined in Section 2.8. Soils formed from basalt are likely to be deeper, more fertile and to possess structures which are more resistant to erosion than would be soils formed from acidic rocks such as granites. Quaternary alluvial deposits will form soils which are generally more fertile than soils from granites, granodiorites and most metamorphic rocks.
(4) Summary of Findings
1. In the case of the Coruh River catchment, the major control of natural rates of weathering and production of sediments and bedloads appears to be largely related to the types of rocks, the amount of faulting and the degree of stratification of the rocks. 2. A wide variety of rock types is found in the Coruh River catchment, although the area is dominated by volcanic rocks of different types and ages. 3. Extensive areas near Tortum and also extending to parts of the eastern and northern boundaries of the catchment contain basalts and related rock types. 4. There are some areas of serpentines (ultrabasic rocks with high manganese contents) around Yusufeli and Narman. 5. The gypsiferous rocks around Narman are notable for their extremely eroded bare slopes. 6. The only reasonably large extensive deposits of recent alluvia in the catchment are found on flat or gently undulating plains west of Bayburt.
A - 15
Table A.2.3 Geological types, by area (km2) in each MC
Mesoz. Eoc., Oligo- Upper Lower (Ophiol. Neog., Neog., Upper Total Eoc., Volc. Juras.- Lower Mioc., Paleoz., Upper Cret., Upper SC A K Lias Cret., Malm Series), Volc. Cont, Q Cret., Y Others Area Flysch Cret. Cret. Gypsif. Metam., Cret. Volc. Mioc. Flysch Mainly Facies Undif. Flysch Facies Facies Facies Cret.
Berta Sub-total 2,280 670 53 33 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 75 3 18 0 1,356 0 0 0 Lower Coruh Sub-total 1,777 190 0 470 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 960 0 0 0 Middle Coruh Sub-total 2,590 66 106 426 66 925 27 0 25 105 0 0 0 0 227 40 59 7 364 0 147 0 Oltu Sub-total 5,013 1,636 306 63 0 38 30 0 360 309 285 5 273 618 283 57 256 344 69 0 72 8 Tortum Sub-total 2,030 686 16 99 0 62 23 0 336 450 0 139 0 9 0 0 4 182 0 0 24 0 Upper Coruh Sub-total 6,518 134 548 1,006 4 1,000 782 738 197 767 58 0 0 0 302 475 118 4 196 144 22 24 Others 7 Total 20,209 3,383 1,028 2,097 104 2,039 862 738 918 1,632 343 145 273 669 1,025 574456 536 2,945 144 265 32 Note: Others include Cretaceous, undifferentiated with 8km2, Permo-Carboniferous with 14 km2 and Pliocene, Continental with 10 km2. Source: JICA Study Team calculation using GIS based on old (1960s) geological maps (scale 1:500,000) by MTA. A - 16
Table A.2.4 Geological types, by percentage of each MC
Mesoz. Oligo- Upper Eoc., Lower (Ophiol. Neog., Neog., Upper Eoc., Juras.- Lower Mioc., Paleoz., Upper Cret., Upper SC Total A Volc. K Lias Cret., Malm Series), Volc. Cont, Q Cret., Y Others Flysch Cret. Cret. Gypsif. Metam., Cret. Volc. Mioc. Facies Flysch Mainly Facies Undif. Flysch Facies Facies Cret.
Berta Sub-total 100.0 29.4 2.3 1.5 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.3 0.1 0.8 0.0 59.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lower Coruh Sub-total 100.0 10.7 0.0 26.4 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Coruh Sub-total 100.0 2.6 4.1 16.5 2.6 35.7 1.0 0.0 1.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 1.5 2.3 0.3 14.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 Oltu Sub-total 100.0 32.6 6.1 1.3 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 7.2 6.2 5.7 0.1 5.5 12.3 5.6 1.1 5.1 6.9 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.2 Turtum Sub-total 100.0 33.8 0.8 4.9 0.0 3.1 1.1 0.0 16.5 22.2 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 8.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 Upper Coruh Sub-total 100.0 2.1 8.4 15.4 0.1 15.3 12.0 11.3 3.0 11.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 7.3 1.8 0.1 3.0 2.2 0.3 0.4 Others Total 100.0 16.7 5.1 10.4 0.5 10.1 4.3 3.7 4.5 8.1 1.7 0.7 1.4 3.3 5.1 2.8 2.3 2.7 14.6 0.7 1.3 0.2 Note: Others include Cretaceous, undifferentiated, Permocarboniferous and Pliocene, Continental. Source: MTA old (1960s) geological maos for Trabzon, Erzurum and Kars (1:500,000), processed by Study GIS
A.2.4 Hydrology
(1) Introduction
The Coruh River and its tributaries rise in the western part of the catchment west and south of Bayburt at altitudes of about 2000 m and flow about 300 km to the Black Sea, crossing the Turkish border into Georgia for the last few kilometers. The river and its tributaries are notable for their rapid flows, especially when the snow melts. The Coruh River is already being used for recreational activities such as rafting between Ispir, Yusufeli and Artvin. The River and tributaries are the main sources of water for irrigation and drinking for villages along their banks, and carry some of the wastes from those villages and from agricultural activities. They transport suspended sediments and bedloads from the landscapes and roads which will affect the future dams. The sediments ultimately flow to the Black Sea, unless trapped by the dams, and the quality of the water which enters the Black Sea is important to the biological health of that body of water.
(2) Data
The Study Team prepared a River Drainage Map, which is attached. DSI provided a map showing the locations of the hydrological measuring stations in the Coruh River catchment (numbered No. 23), which is also attached. There are approximately 40 stations in the catchment, but not all are measured with the same frequency. The stations are mostly concentrated along the Coruh River downstream of Bayburt, with several on the Tortum, Berta and Oltu streams, and there are no stations within the extreme western and southern areas of the catchment. Information on the discharges of water and sediment for nine selected stations is presented in Table 2.5. The Study Team has little reliable information on the water quality of the Coruh River and its tributaries.
(3) Discussion
The information in Table 2.5 is derived from very detailed records of many measurements throughout the year and over many years at most stations. The hydrological characteristics demonstrated in the table include:
• The Coruh River, and especially its tributaries, demonstrate extreme ranges between maximum and minimum discharges throughout the year. They are very “flashy” streams, subject to extreme storm events which will produce rapid, massive, very erosive flows. • As might be expected, the within-year variations in discharge demonstrate a clear seasonal pattern, with the highest discharges during the snow melt within the period March to June approximately, very low discharges in Summer and generally low flows in Autumn and Winter.
A - 17
• The coefficients (R2) for the regressions of log daily average suspended sediment (t/day) on log daily average discharge in m3/second (cumecs) demonstrate a close relationship between these parameters. In other words, the larger the discharge the faster the water velocity and the greater the transport of suspended sediment. Murgul Cayi is the exception, with a very low coefficient, due solely to four aberrant readings when sediment discharge was much lower than expected for the water discharge. Apart from those four readings, all other readings would conform to the close relationship measured at the other stations. • The average sediment discharges in t/km2/yr range from as low as 61 to as high as 653 in different Sub-Catchments. There is no obvious relationship between catchment size and sediment discharge. Other possible relationships between some catchment characteristics and sediment discharge will be examined in Section 2.8. • Sediment composition (%sand:%silt+clay) mostly varies from about 40:60 to 60:40, with one striking exception (Station 2331, Deviskel Deresi) at 20:80. The available data is insufficient to provide an explanation for this exception. • The data on sediment discharge will be further discussed in Section 2.9, in relation to the effects of sediment on the dams to be built on the Lower Coruh River.
(4) Summary of Findings
• The Coruh River, and especially its tributaries, demonstrate extreme ranges between maximum and minimum discharges throughout the year. They are very “flashy” streams, subject to extreme storm events which will produce rapid, massive, very erosive flows. • The within-year variations in discharge demonstrate a clear seasonal pattern, with the highest discharges during the snow melt within the period March to June approximately, very low discharges in Summer and generally low flows in Autumn and Winter. • The larger the average daily water discharge the faster the water velocity and the greater the average daily transport of suspended sediment. • The average sediment discharges in t/km2/yr range from as low as 61 to as high as 653 in different Sub-Catchments.
A - 18
Table A.2.5 Some features of the hydrology of the Coruh River at selected measuring stations (figures rounded)
R2 of Area of Mean Suspended Average Average regression of Catchment Discharge Sediment Sediment Sediment log daily (km2) (m3/second) (t/yr) Discharge Composition average (maximum) (t/km2/yr) suspended (minimum) sediment (t/day) on log daily average discharge (m3/sec)
Sand Silt + (%) Clay (%) Station 2315, Coruh Nehri, Karsikoy. 57m elevation. Years of record, 32 0.67 19,654 209 7,146,900 401 53 47 (1211) (38) Station 2316, Coruh Nehri, Ispir Bridge. 1170 m elevation. Years of record, 32 0.78 5,505 44 505,800 92 43 57 (350) (7) Station2322, Coruh Nehri, Altinsu. 201 m elevation. Years of record, 15 0.85 18,326 160 6,962,100 422 59 41 (994) (26) Station 2325, Oltu Suyu, Asagikumlu. 1129 m elevation. Years of record, 22 0.77 1,762 7 854,700 485 62 38 (67) (0.3) Station 2327, Berta Suyu, Ciftehanlar. 570 m elevation. Years of record, 3 0.82 1,216 22 73,700 61 45 55 (84) (4) Station 2329, Oltu Suyu, Coskunlar. 1004 m elevation. Years of record, 8 0.79 3,539 17 1,531,800 433 60 40 (182) (1.3) Station 2331, Deviskel Deresi, Gundogdu. 500 m elevation. Years of record, 11 0.71 100 5 6,400 65 21 79 (19) (0.5) Station 2334, Berta Suyu, Baglik, 366 m elevation. Years of record, 4 0.81 1,473 26 161,150 109 49 51 (99) (5) Station 2339, Murgul Cayi, Erenkoy, 213 m elevation. Years of record, 10 0.11 298 12 1,944,300 653 47 53 (59) 1.5) Sources. DSI records
A - 19
A.2.5 Soils
(1) Introduction
The types of soils occurring in an area are obviously important for several reasons:
• Firstly, they are the media in which trees, pastures and crops grow, whether naturally or under agricultural systems. The productivity of the vegetation depends strongly upon the nature and distribution of soils, and upon the constraints on plant growth (such as nutrient levels, water relations and compacted layers) presented by the different types of soils. The productivity of the vegetation also depends on the climate of the area, largely acting through the mediating influence of the soils. • The types and distributions of soils on a landscape are related in complex ways to the topography, climate, geology and land capability of the area. In turn, the types of soils will affect the land capability. These relationships will be examined in Section 2.8. • The types of soils on a landscape will strongly influence the infiltration rates and erodibility of the soils, and thus (in conjunction with the topography and climate) will affect the extent and severity of soil erosion and the output of suspended sediments from the catchments.
(2) Data
The basic data on soils which was used to prepare the GIS for the Study was supplied by GDRS. The original data included information on 26 so-called “Great Soil Groups”. For ease of mapping and comprehension some similar soils were combined, making 13 classes, and in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 have been further grouped into 11 classes, plus a column for areas for which there was ‘No Data’.
In addition, some detailed information was supplied by GDRS for various combinations of soil characteristics. These included relationships between: the Great Soil Groups and slope and soil depth; Alluvial Soils and drainage and texture combinations; Hydromorphic Alluvial Soils and combinations of texture, salt-alkali content and drainage; and Colluvial Soils and slope, texture and soil depth. Three other tables gave information on Saline-Alkaline Soils, Organic Soils and Other Soil Characteristics. This detailed information has not been used to compile the GIS. The soil surveys would have been undertaken at reconnaissance level over areas which are mostly very difficult to access, and by different surveyors over a lengthy period of time. The distribution of soil types shown in Figure 3.2-3 is therefore only indicative.
Two other publications give authoritative information about the soils of the Study Area: Ali Gunduz (2001), Coruh Havzasi ve Artvin, and Atalay, I., Tetlik, M., Yilmaz, O., (1985) The
A - 20
Ecosystems of Northeastern Turkey, Ormancilik Arastirma Ensititusu Yayinlari Teknik Bulten Serisi No. 141.
The main soil classes identified by Atalay et al. (1985) are:
Zonal Soils: (those soils developed under the predominant influence of the local climatic zones) Brown Soils; Non-Calcic Brown Soils; Chestnut Soils; Chernozems; Red-Yellow Podzolics; Brown Forest Soils; Podzolised Brown Forest Soils; Non-Calcic Brown Forest Soils.
Azonal Soils: (generally, young soils developed under the predominant influence of geomorphological factors, such as slope or impeded drainage) Alluvial Soils; Hydromorphic Alluvial Soils; Colluvial Soils; Lithosols (on basalts and andesites); Regosols.
Intrazonal Soils: (those soils developed under the predominating influence of unusual parent materials) Organic Soils; High Meadow and Pasture Soils; Sandy and Gravelly Soils on flysches; Limey Sandy and Gravelly Soils on fysches and limestones; Rocky and Gravelly Soils on granites, quartzites, crystalline limestone and schists; Stony and Alkaline Soils (peridotite and serpentine); Gravelly and Stony Soils on volcanics; Gypsum, Saly and Alkaline Soils on Oligocene deposits.
The information provided by Gunduz (2001) and Atalay et al. (1985) has been used in preparing this Section and Tables 2.8 and 2.9.
(3) Discussion
Figure 3.2-3, Tables 2.6 and 2.7 and Annexes 4 and 5 illustrate the most common soils in the Study Area. Only five types of soils cover about 77% of the whole catchment, with all the other soils combined covering only about 13% of the catchment. There is no data on the soils in about 8.4% of the catchment. However, some of the less common soils may be locally important – a good example being the Alluvial Soils whose importance is considerable for individual villages.
Table 2.8 sets out some details of the most significant features of soil distribution in the whole catchment and in the Sub-Catchments.
Table 2.9 briefly describes the most important soils mentioned in Table 2.8, and includes some comments on the fertility, erodibility and constraining factors for plant productivity of each of these soils. Possible correlations and relationships between soils, slopes, geology, land capability and soil erosion in the Coruh River catchment are examined in Section 2.8.
A - 21
Detailed information about the distribution, areas and percentage coverage of the most common soils in the six selected MCs – Savsat (BT-04), Yusufeli (MC-03), Oltu (OL-04), Uzundere (TR-03), Bayburt (UC-03) and Ispir (UC-14) – will be found in Annexes 4 and 5.
(4) Summary of Findings
1. The most common soils in the Study Area are the Basaltic Soils, Brown Forest Soils, Brown Soils, Chestnut Soils and High Mountain Pasture Soils. Together, these five types of soils cover about 77% of the whole catchment, with all the other soils combined covering only about 13% of the catchment. Some Sub-Catchments have locally high occurrences of particular soils. 2. The Alluvial Soils are not common in terms of area or percentage occurrence, but are very important to villagers where they occur as they are highly productive. 3. Most of the soils are moderately or strongly erodible, especially where present on steep slopes. 4. Most of the soils possess only moderate fertility, and present severe constraints of shallowness, poor fertility, stony subsoils and high erodibility, especially where present on steep slopes.
A - 22
Table A.2.6 Main soil classes, areas (km2)
Non- High Non- Red- Allu- Basalt- Brown Chest- Collu- calcic Brown Mountain calcic Yellow No Sub- SC vial ic Forest nut vium Brown Others Soils Pasture Brown Podzolic data total Soils Soils Soils Soils Soils Forest Soils Soils Soils Soils
Berta 1 0 1,717 0 3 2 351 0 0 40 0 165 2,280 Lower Coruh 1 0 393 0 0 1 100 518 0 675 0 76 1,765 Middle Coruh 12 39 1,584 0 13 0 307 220 0 1 0 419 2,596 Oltu 2 1,857 1,084 869 384 178 137 94 0 0 0 457 5,063 Tortum 2 898 497 274 177 49 20 0 0 0 4 107 2,029 Upper Coruh 575 162 280 2,401 1,505 101 630 67 320 0 2 469 6,512 Total 593 2,956 5,555 3,545 2,082 333 1,545 900 320 717 6 1,694 20,244 Note: Others include Gray Brown Podzolic soils with 4 km2 and Saline-Alkaline and Mixture soils with 2 km2. Source: JICA Study Team based on GIS data by GDRS.
Table A.2.7 Main soil classes, (percentage of area)
Non- High Non- Red- Allu- Brown Chest- Collu- calcic Basaltic Brown Mountain calcic Yellow SC vial Forest nut vium Brown Others No data Total Soils Soils Pasture Brown Podzolic Soils Soils Soils Soils Forest Soils Soils Soils Soils
Berta 0.0% 0.0% 75.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 7.3% 100.0% Lower Coruh 0.1% 0.0% 22.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 5.6% 29.4% 0.0% 38.2% 0.0% 4.3% 100.0% Middle Coruh 0.5% 1.5% 61.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 11.8% 8.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 16.1% 100.0% Oltu 0.0% 36.7% 21.4% 17.2% 7.6% 3.5% 2.7% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 100.0% Tortum 0.1% 44.3% 24.5% 13.5% 8.7% 2.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.3% 100.0% Upper Coruh 8.8% 2.5% 4.3% 36.9% 23.1% 1.6% 9.7% 1.0% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 7.2% 100.0% Total 2.9% 14.6% 27.4% 17.5% 10.3% 1.6% 7.6% 4.4% 1.6% 3.5% 0.0% 8.4% 100.0% Note: Others include Gray Brown Podzolic soils and Saline-Alkaline and Mixture soils. Source: JICA Study Team based on GIS data by GDRS.
A - 23
Table A.2.8 Significant features of soil distribution in the whole catchment and in the Sub-Catchments.
Type of Soil Area in Percentage Comments on Distribution within Sub-Catchments Whole in Whole (SCs) Catchment Catchment (km2) (%)
Basaltic Soils 2,956 14.6 Found only in Oltu (36.7%) and Tortum (44.3%) SCs, with 2.5% in Upper Coruh.
Brown Forest 5,555 27.4 Common in all SCs except Upper Coruh, where they Soils cover only 4.3%.
Brown Soils 3,545 17.5 Common only in Oltu, Tortum and Upper Coruh SCs. About 37% of Upper Coruh has Brown Soils, with some MCs having more than 80% coverage
Chestnut Soils 2,082 10.3 Found only in Oltu, Tortum and Upper Coruh SCs. Some MCs in Oltu have 20-30% coverage, and some MCs in Upper Coruh have 30-90% coverage.
High Mountain 1,545 7.6 Most common in Berta and Middle Coruh SCs. Nearly Pasture Soils all the MCs in Berta have 10-20% coverage, and half the MCs in Middle Coruh have 13-45%. Five MCs in Upper Coruh have 15-37% coverage, with the remaining 12 MCs having virtually no coverage.
Alluvial Soils 593 2.9 Virtually absent at this scale of mapping in all SCs except Middle Coruh (0.5%) and Upper Coruh (8.8%). Some MCs in Upper Coruh have as much as 15% coverage, with MC-15 at 37%. However, even very small areas of these soils are extremely important to villagers where they occur.
Colluvial Soils 333 1.6 Not common in any SC, although some MCs in Oltu have up to 10% coverage, and some in Tortum and Upper Coruh have up to 4%.
Non-Calcic 1,220 6 Only common in Lower Coruh and Middle Coruh, where Brown Forest some MCs have as much as 20-50% coverage and one Soils and Non- MC (LC-06) has 90%. Calcic Brown Soils
Red-Yellow 717 3.5 Found only in Berta SC (BT-01 has 10%) and Lower Podzolic Soils Coruh, where LC-03, LC-04 and LC-07 have 75-90% coverage.
Sources: Study GIS
A - 24
Table A.2.9 Brief soil descriptions, and comments on fertility, erodibility and constraining factors for plant productivity
Soil Type Comments on Soil Comments on Soil Comments on Fertility Erodibility Constraints on Plant Productivity
Alluvial Soils. Usually Quite fertile, and very Alluvial soils by Few constraints. on gentle slopes near important to villagers definition are water- Especially when irrigated streams. Usually deep, where they occur even if deposited, and therefore alluvial soils can be very friable, well drained but in very small areas. are subject to removal by productive for human and water-retentive. bank erosion. Apart from animal food crops. this factor, their gentle slopes will generally not predispose to erosion. Basaltic Soils. These Moderately fertile, Generally will be Few constraints. These soils are not strictly in a although with high moderately resistant to soils are moderately Great Soil Group. They phosphorus-fixing erosion, due to well productive, and rarely will generally be capacity. developed structures. have any compacted reasonably deep and well layers in the subsoils. structured, with moderate They may have stony organic matter contents. subsoils with poorly They will be well drained weathered stones and but moisture retentive. boulders. Brown Forest Soils. Reasonably fertile, due to Generally quite erodible, Few constraints, unless Generally found under development under the especially on steeper on steep slopes with broadleaved forests, or previous broadleaved slopes. shallow stony subsoils. where such forests used forest and high pH due to to occur. Contain high lime content. significant amounts of lime in the subsoils. Well-drained. Brown Soils. Generally Fertility will be similar to Will generally be quite Some constraints, similar to Brown Forest Brown Forest Soils. erodible, as these soils are especially where they Soils, but developed Neutral to alkaline, usually found on steep occur on steep slopes. under poorer vegetation. especially in the subsoils. slopes and rarely have Will generally have stony Well-drained, and may strong structures. subsoils. have stony subsoils. Chestnut Soils. Are dark Can be quite fertile, with Will be quite erodible, Some constraints, coloured soils developed high organic matter especially on steep especially where they under semi-arid and sub- contents. slopes. occur on steep slopes. humid grasslands. Will be reasonably deep where slopes are not steep. High Mountain Pasture Moderately fertile, but These soils generally These soils are generally Soils. Strictly, these soils will not support high rates occur on relatively gentle shallow over stony are not a distinct Great of pasture growth if slopes and may have a subsoils. The climatic Soil Group. These soils exploited heavily and if satisfactory plant cover, conditions are harsh. A will generally be acidic, not fertilized. which will guard against high plant cover shallow and have stony erosion. However, if the percentage must be subsoils. They support plant cover declines due maintained to avoid soil rangeland pastures and to over-grazing, these erosion. are favoured for summer soils can erode rapidly. grazing.
A - 25
Non-Calcic Brown Only moderate fertility, May be easily eroded, due These soils present Forest Soils and Non- and may be acidic in to poorer plant cover and constraints to rangeland Calcic Brown Soils. Are topsoils and subsoils. steep slopes. development, due to generally shallow soils on shallowness, steep slopes steep slopes. and moderate to poor fertility.
Red-Yellow Podzolic Poor fertility, acidic and Are highly erodible, These soils present Soils. Well-drained, with low organic matter especially on steep constraints to rangeland acidic soils, often with a contents. slopes. and forest development, poorly-permeable subsoil. due to shallowness, poor Will usually be shallow, fertility and acidity. They with stony subsoils. Are are generally used for tea not common in the Study and hazelnut production. Area.
Sources: DOKAP Study. FAO-UNESCO Soil Map of the World (Revised Legend, 1990). World Soil Resources Reports 60 and 66. Atalay et al. (1985). Gunduz (2001)
A - 26
A.2.6 Land Capability
(1) Introduction
The Land Capability Classification used in Turkey closely resembles the original system devised by the United States Department of Agriculture. It has eight Classes (I to VIII), which broadly integrate the soil and site factors affecting suitability for cultivation. These are the slope of the land, the degree of erosion, various soil properties such as soil depth and chemical composition, and other limiting factors such as wetness and potential for flooding. In general, Land Capability Classes I to IV are suitable for most intensive crops (including horticulture and pastures) provided appropriate management practices are followed. Class I has few limitations of any kind, while Classes II, III and IV have increasingly severe limitations for intensive agriculture, horticulture and pastures. Class V is a special Class, generally denoting areas which would be within Classes I to IV were it not for some severe limitation on cultivation, such as extreme rockiness or very poor drainage. Classes VI, VII and VIII are not cultivable, and have increasingly severe limitations on agriculture, and even limitations on extensive grazing on rangelands with native pastures. Lands under Classes VII and VIII would normally be used only for limited commercial (production) forestry or protection forestry, and rangelands.
(2) Data
The basic data was supplied by GDRS. It has been processed by the GIS to produce Figure 3.2-4, Tables 2.10 and 2.11, and Annexes 6 and 7. It should be noted that the GDRS data does not include any assessments of Class V land. There is no data for about 21,000 ha, or 1.1%, of land in the catchment. The original field surveys would have been undertaken by teams of surveyors over a lengthy period of time and the criteria for classification may not have been carefully standardized among the teams. The distribution of Land Capability Classes in Figure 3.2-4 is therefore only indicative.
(3) Discussion
Figure 3.2-4 clearly demonstrates that most of the Coruh River catchment falls into Land Capability Classes VI, VII and VIII, reflecting the harsh topography. Apart from areas in the western end of the catchment, the small proportion of land within Classes I, II and III indicates the generally limited potential for intensive agriculture and horticulture. There are some reasonably extensive areas of Class IV land in the south and east of the catchment.
Detailed information about the distribution, areas and percentage coverage of the Land Capability Classes in the six selected MCs – Savsat (BT-04), Yusufeli (MC-03), Oltu (OL-04), Uzundere (TR-03), Bayburt (UC-03) and Ispir (UC-14) – will be found in Annexes 6 and 7.
A - 27
Conclusions which may be drawn from Figure 3.2-4, Tables 2.10 and 2.11 and Annexes 6 and 7 include:
• In the catchment as a whole, only about 15% of the land is in Classes I to IV. Conversely, about 85% is in Classes VI to VII, with Class VII predominating at 59%. • There is virtually no Class I land anywhere in the catchment, except for about 3% in each of OL-02 and OL-03, and 11.4% in UC-07. The total area of Class I land is only about 11,300 ha, or 1.7% of the whole catchment. • Class II land is also scarce, except in a few MCs in Oltu and Tortum SCs and significant areas in Upper Coruh (17.7% in UC-05, 11 to 13% in UC-08 and UC-09, and 37.5% [about 17,300 ha] in UC-15). • Class III land is likewise scarce, except in three MCs in Oltu SC. • Class IV land occupies about 7.5% of the whole catchment, principally within three MCs in Berta SC (11-17%), in Oltu SC (11.2% overall, with OL-09 having 31%), in Tortum (3 MCs from 19-29%) and some of the MCs in Upper Coruh with up to about 13%. • Class VI land occurs over 17% of the whole catchment, with high proportions within Berta SC (27%), and about 12-17% in each of the other SCs. • Class VII land dominates all SCs – at least 50% of the land is within this Class in every SC. Lower Coruh SC has 82% overall, with LC-01 at 91.4%. • Class VIII land occupies 8.4% of the whole catchment and is particularly common in Middle Coruh SC (24.1%). MC-02 has about 77% of its land in this Class. UC-15 is an unusual MC, having virtually all its land in either Class II (37.3%) or Classes VII and VIII (55.2%).
(4) Summary of Findings
1. Most of the Coruh River catchment falls into Land Capability Classes VI, VII and VIII, reflecting the harsh topography. Apart from areas in the western end of the catchment, the small proportion of land within Classes I, II and III indicates the generally limited potential for intensive agriculture and horticulture. There are some reasonably extensive areas of Class IV land in the south and east of the catchment. 2. In the catchment as a whole, only about 15% of the land is in Classes I to IV. Conversely, about 85% is in Classes VI to VII, with Class VII predominating at 59%. 3. The total area of Class I land is only about 11,300 ha, or 1.7% of the whole catchment. Class II and Class III land is also scarce. Class IV land occupies about 7.5% of the whole catchment. 4. Class VI land occurs over 17% of the whole catchment. 5. Class VII land dominates all SCs – at least 50% of the land is within this Class in every SC. About 82% of Lower Coruh SC is in Class VII. 6. Class VIII land occupies 8.4% of the whole catchment
A - 28
Table A.2.10 Land Capability by area (hectares)
I II III IV VI VII VIII No data Sub-total Berta 0 141 4,368 18,596 61,356 127,026 15,991 547 228,025 Lower Coruh 75 24 43 1,877 22,021 144,780 6,619 1,027 176,466 Middle Coruh 0 876 349 5,275 40,977 148,387 62,529 1,159 259,552 Oltu 2,774 6,791 26,332 56,858 73,388 294,445 32,487 13,245 506,322 Tortum 0 4,062 4,998 27,146 28,995 126,980 10,128 579 202,889 Upper Coruh 11,344 58,272 24,574 42,827 116,593 350,687 41,905 4,968 651,171 Totals 14,194 70,166 60,664 152,580 343,331 1,192,305 169,659 21,525 2,024,424 Sources: GDRS data processed by the Study GIS
Table A.2.11 Land capability by percentage of each MC
I II III IV VI VII VIII No data Sub-total Berta 0.0 0.1 1.9 8.2 26.9 55.7 7.0 0.2 228,025 Lower Coruh 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 12.5 82.0 3.8 0.6 176,466 Middle Coruh 0.0 0.3 0.1 2.0 15.8 57.2 24.1 0.4 259,552 Oltu 0.5 1.3 5.2 11.2 14.5 58.2 6.4 2.6 506,322 Tortum 0.0 2.0 2.5 13.4 14.3 62.6 5.0 0.3 202,889 Upper Coruh 1.7 8.9 3.8 6.6 17.9 53.9 6.4 0.8 651,171 Totals 0.7 3.5 3.0 7.5 17.0 58.9 8.4 1.1 2,024,424 Sources: GDRS data processed by the Study GIS
A.2.7 Soil Erosion
(1) Introduction
It is well known that soil erosion is very severe in almost all parts of Turkey. Some estimates indicate that the status of soil erosion is:
• No soil erosion: 5.2 m ha, or 6.6% of the country; • Slight soil erosion: 5.6 m ha, or 7.2% of the country; • Medium severity of soil erosion: 15.6 m ha, or 20.0% of the country; • Intensive severity of soil erosion: 28.3 m ha, or 36.4% of the country; • Most severe soil erosion: 17.4 ma ha, or 22.3% of the country; • Bare rocky areas: 2.9 m ha, or 3.8% of the country; and • Areas affected by wind erosion: 0.5 m ha, or 0.6% of the country.
The Turkey Forestry Sector Review (World Bank Report No. 22458-TU, June 27 2001) states (para. 10) that serious soil erosion occurs on about 75 percent of the country, and is one of the most serious environmental problems of Turkey. The amount of soil carried off by erosion may be as much as 500 million tonnes annually, of which some 350 million tonnes is
A - 29
deposited in the reservoirs behind dams. The damage from frequent floods and torrents which take lives and degrade farmlands and infrastructure is also severe.
These generalised statements of the obvious problem in most parts of Turkey also apply to the Coruh River catchment. Soil erosion is important because it:
• degrades soil productivity for intensive and extensive agriculture, and forestry, and therefore seriously limits the livelihoods of all those villagers dependent on agricultural activities in the rural areas; • destroys perhaps the most important natural resource in Turkey, and therefore must be rehabilitated, arrested and controlled; • affects the potential for rehabilitation, or the reversibility of land degradation; and • produces suspended sediments and stream bedloads which eventually move to the tributaries of the Coruh River and are deposited in dams, thus reducing their effective lifespans.
(2) Data
The Classes for water-caused soil erosion have been assigned by GDRS:
• Erosion Class 1: None, or very little • Erosion Class 2: Moderate • Erosion Class 3: Severe • Erosion Class 4: Extreme
It is important to note that the assignment of an Erosion Class is largely subjective, is heavily dependent on the personal approach of the assessor and is probably not exactly replicable by another assessor. The criteria for assigning an Erosion Class do not appear to be quantified in any way, for example by a statement such as “more than 25% of the topsoil has been lost”. It should also be noted that even the “Moderate” Class (2) probably indicates a rather high degree of soil erosion which will already be affecting the productivity of the site. Likewise, the distinctions between Classes 3 and 4 (“Severe” and “Extreme”) are probably hard to judge. It would seem best to amalgamate the two so that, in reality, there would be two broad classes of soil erosion: Classes 1 plus 2, and Classes 3 plus 4.
The original field surveys would have been undertaken by teams of surveyors over a lengthy period of time and the criteria for classification may not have been carefully standardized among the teams. The distribution of Soil Erosion Classes in Figure 3.2-5 is therefore only indicative.
A - 30
All the MCs in Table 2.12 have considerable areas for which there is ‘No Data’. This category averages 8.4% over the whole catchment, and in some MCs can range up to as much as 20-35%.
Detailed information about the distribution, areas and percentage coverage of the Soil Erosion Classes in the six selected MCs – Savsat (BT-04), Yusufeli (MC-03), Oltu (OL-04), Uzundere (TR-03), Bayburt (UC-03) and Ispir (UC-14) – will be found in Annex 8.
In addition, a selection of recent colour aerial photographs (approximately 1:15,000 scale) of the Oltu MC was inspected at the Photogrammetry Department of OGM in Ankara. The erosion “hotspots” were clearly visible in stereoscopic view and each could have been delineated on the photographs and the area measured with a dot grid or planimeter. A small trial indicated that this procedure would take approximately 15 minutes for each square kilometer of interest, which could mean a total of 3-5 days’ work for each MC, depending on the intensity of visible erosion. There was insufficient time and opportunity to undertake this task during this mission, even for one MC let alone six. It is strongly recommended that the detailed studies of each MC which will have to be undertaken during the planning phase of the implementation project should include this activity, either by contract with OGM or by a team member, in order to supplement the field observations of “hotspots” prior to planning the most vital rehabilitation activities.
(3) Discussion
The map of Soil Erosion Classes prepared by the GIS (Figure 3.2-5) broadly resembles the Land Capability map, which is not surprising considering that assessments of land capability depend heavily upon the status of soil erosion at a site.
Figure 3.2-5, Table 2.12 and Annex 8 clearly indicate the very large proportion of the catchment which has suffered severe and extreme degrees of soil erosion. Over the whole catchment, the proportion of Erosion Class 1 is only 3.8% and of Class 2 is 25.3%. Given that Class 2 is “moderate” erosion, the Coruh River catchment in fact has, on average, only about 4% of its land (about 77,000 ha) in a satisfactory state as far as soil erosion is concerned. Other observations include:
• With the exception of Upper Coruh SC, with 9.7% of its land (63,000 ha) in Class 1, all the SCs have virtually no land within Class 1. Oltu and Tortum SC have around2% in this Class. Upper Coruh has one MC (UC-15) with 37% in this Class. • Erosion Class 2 is common in all SCs, with Berta SC having the greatest proportion (33.8%), ranging up to nearly 50% in one MC. UC-14 has no Class 1 but 50.8% in Class 2. • Erosion Class 3 occupies about 51% of the whole catchment, ranging from about 30% in Tortum SC to about 82% in Lower Coruh SC.
A - 31
• All SCs have between about 56% and 82% of their land in the severely and extremely eroded Classes 3 and 4. TR-04 has the highest proportion of Class 4 eroded land, at 50.4%.
During the second half of the 1970s, Mr Mahir Keskin and Mr Ekrem Taftali prepared at least twelve comprehensive reports on surface soil erosion and gully formation in the Erzurum Forest Conservancy. Their criteria for different degrees of erosion are not strictly comparable with the recent GDRS surveys, but are interesting because they specify the degrees of loss of different amounts of topsoil and subsoil which characterize the different classes. The other factor which makes their survey difficult to compare with the GDRS data reported in this Working Paper is that they included areas of “bare rock” as ‘no or slight erosion’ – the reasoning being that such areas have no soil and therefore cannot contribute to discharge of suspended sediments. Nevertheless, Table 2.13 summarises their survey results for parts of the Coruh River catchment.
Table A.2.13 Summarised results of percentage areas of soil erosion classes (rounded), from surveys in Coruh River Sub-Catchments within the Erzurum Forest Conservancy by M. Keskin and E. Taftali in the 1970s
Catchment (havzasi) Class e1 Class e2 Class e3 Class e4 (area in ha) None or Slight Moderate Severe Very Severe (%) (%) (%) (%) Senkaya (162,495) 20 40 40 nil Oltu Cayi (I) (159,611). Considerable 21 24 54 2 areas of gully erosion were also evident. Oltu Cayi (II) (146,602) 52 17 30 1 Ispir-Coruh (106,751) 63 7 25 4 Tortum Lake (122,376) 34 34 22 10 Coruh-Camlikaya (119,173) 47 10 41 1 Source: Reports held at the Erzurum Forest Conservancy
The office of the Erzurum AGM Chief Engineer has, to date, completed a total of 11,558 ha of erosion control works within a total project area of 57,124 ha. During the last five years erosion control planting has included about 1,460 ha of Pinus sylvestris, about 95 ha of Robinia pseudoacacia, about 670 ha of almond trees, 24 ha of oak trees and about 110 ha of other tree species. Table 2.14 lists the work achieved during the last five years by the Erzurum AGM office in both erosion control and afforestation. In addition, about 750 ha of rangeland rehabilitation was accomplished during this period.
A - 32
Table A.2.14 Erosion control activities and afforestation undertaken by the AGM office in Erzurum for the period 1997-2001
Year Erosion Control Works Afforestation Planning Planting Maintenance Planning Planting Maintenance 1997 742 221 950 545 498 740 1998 350 640 680 610 515 1200 1999 320 257 320 560 565 880 2000 660 355 300 660 520 587 2001 1050 615 400 102 61 257 Source: AGM Chief Engineer, Erzurum
Details of the field methods used for soil erosion control, and some information about the current costs, are described in Section 5 of this Working Paper.
The costs of erosion control works to rehabilitate badly degraded areas on steep slopes in the Coruh River catchment are very high. Restricted funding will always ensure that there will never be any hope of rehabilitating any significant proportion of the whole catchment. AGM is continually looking for methods of reducing the per-hectare costs of erosion control and afforestation activities. However, it is very difficult to assess the technical effectiveness (and cost-effectiveness) of previous erosion control activities: a problem which is discussed in Sections 3.1 and 4.5. It is very unfortunate that currently there are no objective measures of the success, or otherwise, of these activities, which have been undertaken at considerable cost to the Turkish taxpayer.
Therefore it is necessary, given the limited financial resources, to create frameworks of policies, strategies and tactics for rational decision-making about the locations and amounts of erosion control work to be done. Obviously, “prevention is better than cure” with soil erosion, which means that rangeland rehabilitation and management must be allocated adequate funds and attention. However, although successful rangeland rehabilitation (combined with effective grazing control) may minimise further soil erosion on the rangelands and may even rehabilitate some of the current erosion, it cannot be expected to rehabilitate the severe and extreme levels of soil erosion which are so common in most parts of the Coruh River catchment. Therefore, erosion control activities and afforestation are also necessary to complement rangeland management.
The simplest method of allocating limited resources of money and manpower to erosion control and rehabilitation would be to set up a “triage” system, whereby any area of degraded land would be allocated to one of three categories which might be labelled: (i) ‘reversible’; (ii) ‘possibly reversible’; and (iii) ‘irreversible’. Resources would then be allocated cost- effectively and firstly to category (i), and later to category (ii), on the principle that any resources allocated to category (iii) would be a gross waste of money.
However, it might be better to allocate resources according to an administrative assessment of the priorities of the various groups of stakeholders, perhaps as set out below.
A - 33
Stakeholder group 1: priorities of the farmers who graze livestock on the rangelands. These stakeholders would probably prefer considerable resources to be spent on rangeland rehabilitation to produce as much animal feed as possible. Some of the resources would have to be spent on training farmers and shepherds in improved grazing management. Stakeholder group 2: priorities of the villagers living below flood and torrent-prone valleys. Section 3.2 discusses this strategy, which is certainly understandable from the humanitarian viewpoint but may need to be examined carefully. AGM has to reach a balance between treating these “hot-spots” at very high cost, treating the “mini-catchments” containing the “hot-spots”, doing nothing or persuading villagers to move to less dangerous sites. Stakeholder group 3: priorities of the State forestry agencies. These agencies would probably prefer to treat some of the worst “hot-spots” while also establishing large areas of afforestation. Stakeholder group 4: priorities of State agricultural agencies, including the Treasury and its rangelands. These agencies would probably prefer to rehabilitate and improve as much of the rangelands as possible, while simultaneously improving irrigation and agricultural practices on the arable areas. Stakeholder group 5: priorities of DSI as a builder of dams in the lower Coruh River catchment. DSI would be interested in any forms of erosion control which minimized the discharge of suspended sediments and bedloads. This would mean concentrating on the “hot- spots”, almost regardless of the cost.
These are matters to be decided with the stakeholders in relation to the policies, strategies and tactics for the management and rehabilitation of the selected MCs within the Coruh River catchment.
In addition, a new “Decision-Making Methodology for Rehabilitating Soil Erosion in the Coruh River Catchment” is presented and discussed in Chapter 5 of this Working Paper. It is a method for rationally allocating limited funds to future activities according to a logical and standardized set of field procedures.
(4) Summary of Findings
1. The map of soil erosion prepared by the GIS broadly resembles the Land Capability map, which is not surprising considering that assessments of land capability depend heavily upon the status of soil erosion at a site. 2. The map clearly indicates the very large proportion of the catchment which has suffered severe and extreme degrees of soil erosion. Over the whole catchment, the proportion of Class 1 is only 3.8% and of Class 2 is 25.3%. Given that Class 2 is “moderate” erosion, the Coruh River catchment in fact has, on average, only about 4% of its land (about 77,000 ha) in a satisfactory state as far as soil erosion is concerned.
A - 34
3. With the exception of Upper Coruh SC, with 9.7% of its land (63,000 ha) in Class 1, all the SCs have virtually no land within Class 1. 4. Erosion Class 2 is common in all SCs, with Berta SC having the greatest proportion (33.8%), ranging up to nearly 50% in one MC. 5. Erosion Class 3 occupies about 51% of the whole catchment, ranging from about 30% in Tortum SC to about 82% in Lower Coruh SC. 6. All SCs have between about 56% and 82% of their land in the severely and extremely eroded Classes 3 and 4. 7. The costs of erosion control works to rehabilitate badly degraded areas on steep slopes in the Coruh River catchment are very high. Restricted funding will always ensure that there will never be any hope of rehabilitating even a small proportion of the whole catchment. 8. Currently there are no objective measures of the success, or otherwise, of erosion control activities, which have been undertaken at considerable cost to the Turkish taxpayer. 9. Therefore it is necessary, given the limited financial resources, to create frameworks of policies, strategies and tactics for rational decision-making about the locations and amounts of erosion control work to be done. 10. Obviously, “prevention is better than cure” with soil erosion, which means that rangeland rehabilitation and management must be allocated adequate funds and attention. However, although successful rangeland rehabilitation (combined with effective grazing control) may minimise further soil erosion on the rangelands and may even rehabilitate some of the current erosion, it cannot be expected to rehabilitate the severe and extreme levels of soil erosion which are so common in most parts of the Coruh River catchment. 11. The simplest method of allocating limited resources of money and manpower to erosion control and rehabilitation would be to set up a “triage” system, whereby any area of degraded land would be allocated to one of three categories which might be labelled: (i) ‘reversible’; (ii) ‘possibly reversible’; and (iii) ‘irreversible’. Resources would then be allocated cost-effectively and firstly to category (i), and later to category (ii), on the principle that any resources allocated to category (iii) would be a gross waste of money. 12. However, it might be better to allocate resources according to an administrative assessment of the priorities of the various groups of stakeholders, which might include: 13. Stakeholder group 1: priorities of the farmers who graze livestock on the rangelands. These stakeholders would probably prefer considerable resources to be spent on rangeland rehabilitation to produce as much animal feed as possible. Some of the resources would have to be spent on training farmers and shepherds in improved grazing management. 14. Stakeholder group 2: priorities of the villagers living below flood and torrent-prone valleys. Section 3.2 discussed this strategy, which is certainly understandable from the humanitarian viewpoint but may need to be examined carefully. AGM has to reach a balance between treating these “hot-spots” at very high cost, treating the “mini- catchments” containing the “hot-spots”, doing nothing or persuading villagers to move to less dangerous sites.
A - 35
15. Stakeholder group 3: priorities of the State forestry agencies. These agencies would probably prefer to treat some of the worst “hot-spots” while also establishing large areas of afforestation. 16. Stakeholder group 4: priorities of State agricultural agencies, including the Treasury and its rangelands. These agencies would probably prefer to rehabilitate and improve as much of the rangelands as possible, while simultaneously improving irrigation and agricultural practices on the arable areas. 17. Stakeholder group 5: priorities of DSI as a builder of dams in the lower Coruh River catchment. DSI would be interested in any forms of erosion control which minimized the discharge of suspended sediments and bedloads. This would mean concentrating on the “hot-spots”, almost regardless of the cost. DSI has, in fact, provided funds to AGM for this type of activity. 18. These are matters to be decided with the stakeholders in relation to the policies, strategies and tactics for the management and rehabilitation of the selected MCs within the Coruh River catchment. 19. A new “Decision-Making Methodology for Rehabilitating Soil Erosion in the Coruh River Catchment” is presented and discussed in Chapter 5 of this Working Paper. It is a method for rationally allocating limited funds to future activities according to a logical and standardized set of field procedures.
A - 36
Table A.2.12 Soil erosion, areas (ha) and percentage of each MC in the four erosion classes
Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Total Area Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class SC No Data No Data (ha) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (%) (%) (%) (%) Berta subtotal 228,025 92 76,968 128,420 6,006 16,538 0.0 33.8 56.3 2.6 7.3 Lower Coruh subtotal 176,466 99 22,701 143,908 2,111 7,646 0.1 12.9 81.6 1.2 4.3 Middle Coruh subtotal 259,552 969 46,793 157,834 12,070 41,886 0.4 18.0 60.8 4.7 16.1 Oltu subtotal 506,322 8,553 137,406 244,775 69,856 45,733 1.7 27.1 48.3 13.8 9.0 Tortum subtotal 202,889 4,303 57,255 61,698 68,926 10,707 2.1 28.2 30.4 34.0 5.3 Upper Coruh subtotal 651,170 62,880 171,120 299,538 70,760 46,873 9.7 26.3 46.0 10.9 7.2 Totals 2,024,424 76,897 512,243 1,036,174 229,729 169,382 3.8 25.3 51.2 11.3 8.4 Source: GDRS data manipulated by the Study GIS
A - 37
A.2.8 Correlations between Slopes, Geology, Soils, Land Capability and Soil Erosion in the Coruh River Catchment
(1) Introduction
It would be helpful in understanding the occurrence and severity of soil erosion in the Coruh River catchment if there were some clear correlations between the observed occurrence and severity of soil erosion and the observed slopes, geology, soils and land capability.
In order to examine such correlations, it would be necessary to examine relevant data for each MC to see if a relatively high proportion of one attribute (such as geological rock type) matches a relatively high proportion of some other attribute (such as Erosion Class). However, even if this process yields apparent positive correlations in any MC, the correlations are not necessarily proven, because the two attributes may be commonest in completely different parts of the MC. For example, a MC might have a relatively high proportion of a particular rock type and a relatively high proportion of a particular Soil Erosion Class, but the rock type may occur at one end of the MC and the erosion at the other end.
The only way to resolve the problem is for the Study GIS to map the two attributes on one image so that both the areal extents and locations of the two attributes can be seen to be coincident, or not. This data is not available at the time of writing. In due course, the Study GIS will examine the following possible correlations by overlaying one or two attribute layers on the slope map:
• Slopes and soil erosion • Soils and soil erosion and geology • Slopes and soil erosion and soil types • Slopes and soil erosion and land capability
However, it must not be assumed that any strong positive correlation between two attributes implies causality between them.
(2) Data
The available tabular data allows examination of apparent correlations between:
• Soils and Soil Erosion Class; • Soils and Land Capability; • Slopes and Soil Erosion Class; and • Geological Type and Soil Erosion Class.
A - 38
(3) Discussion
Soils and Soil Erosion Class. Possible correlations between these attributes were examined for only the most common soils: Basaltic Soils, Brown Forest Soils, Brown Soils, Chestnut Soils and High Mountain Pasture Soils. Although they are common in only one Sub- Catchment, Red-Yellow Podzolic Soils were included, as they appear to be particularly erodible.
• Basaltic Soils: there appear to be some weak inverse correlations, with less erosion in Oltu and Tortum on these soils. • Brown Forest Soils: there appear to be weak positive correlations in Berta and Lower Coruh Sub-Catchments, with more erosion (Erosion Classes 2 and 3) on these soils. • Brown Soils and Chestnut Soils: no clear correlations are evident. • High Mountain Pasture Soils: in all Sub-Catchments except Tortum there is a clear association of these soils with Soil Erosion Classes 2 and 3. • Red-Yellow Podzolic Soils: these soils occur only in Lower Coruh Sub-Catchment, and are strongly positively correlated with Erosion Class 3.
Soils and Land Capability. Possible correlations between these attributes were examined for only the most common soils: Basaltic Soils, Brown Forest Soils, Brown Soils, Chestnut Soils and High Mountain Pasture Soils. Correlations between Land Capability and Alluvial Soils were examined in Upper Coruh Sub-Catchment, where they are most common. Although they are common in only one Sub-Catchment, Red-Yellow Podzolic Soils were included, as they appear to be particularly erodible.
• Alluvial Soils: there is a strong correlation with Capability Classes I to III in Upper Coruh Sub-Catchment. • Basaltic Soils: there appears to be a strong correlation between these soils and Capability Classes VI and VII, mostly in Oltu and Tortum Sub-Catchments. • Brown Forest Soils and Brown Soils: there appear to be strong correlations between these soils and Capability Classes VI and VII. • Chestnut Soils: these soils are not very common, but in Upper Coruh Sub-Catchment there appears to be a clear correlation with Capability Classes VI and VII. • High Mountain Pasture Soils: there appear to be weak correlations between these soils and Capability Class VII. • Red-Yellow Podzolic Soils: these soils are found only in Lower Coruh Sub-Catchment, and there is a strong association with Capability Classes VII and VIII.
Slopes and Soil Erosion Class. Possible correlations include:
• Berta Sub-Catchment: there appears to be a moderately strong positive correlation between slopes and Soil Erosion Class.
A - 39
• Lower Coruh Sub-Catchment: on average, and in most of the MCs, there is a strong positive correlation between slopes and Soil Erosion Class. • Middle Coruh Sub-Catchment: on average, about 65% of the Sub-Catchment is in Erosion Class 3 and about 70% is steeper than 30%, so a moderately strong positive correlation can be assumed. • Oltu Sub-Catchment: on average, about 65% of the Sub-Catchment is in Erosion Classes 3 and 4 and about 60% has slopes of 12-30%. The correlations between slopes and Soil Erosion Class, if any, are weakly inverse. • Tortum Sub-Catchment: on average, about 65% of the Sub-Catchment is in Erosion Classes 3 and 4, and there appear to be weak positive correlations between slopes and Soil Erosion Class. • Upper Coruh Sub-Catchment: most MCs (especially UC-06, UC-15 and UC-16) have large proportions of Erosion Classes 1 and 2 correlated with large proportions of gentle slopes less than 30%.
Geological Type and Soil Erosion Class. Possible correlations include:
• The most common geological types are Alluvia, Upper Cretaceous Volcanic Facies, Eocene Volcanic Facies, Lower Cretaceous Flysch and Malm. The data for each Sub- Catchment has been examined and no strong correlations are evident, except there may be a weak positive correlation between the occurrence of Upper Cretaceous Volcanic Facies and Soil Erosion Class 3 in Berta and Lower Coruh Sub-Catchments. • However, the discussion in Section 2.3 above, based on a recent careful examination of the geology in each MC as shown in the new and more detailed 1:500,000 scale geological map and on field observations, indicates that the major control of natural rates of weathering and production of sediments and bedloads appears to be largely related to the complexity of the geological types and structures, the amount of faulting and the degree of stratification of the rocks.
(4) Summary of Findings
1. Soils and Soil Erosion Class. In general, from the available data there appear to be few strong positive or inverse correlations between the occurrence of particular soils and the Soil Erosion Class. High Mountain Pasture Soils in all Sub-Catchments except Tortum are clearly associated with Soil Erosion Classes 2 and 3, and Red-Yellow Podzolic Soils are strongly positively correlated with Erosion Class 3. 2. Soils and Land Capability. There is a strong correlation between Alluvial Soils and Capability Classes I to III in Upper Coruh Sub-Catchment. With some exceptions in some Sub-Catchments, there appear to be strong correlations between Basaltic Soils, Brown Forest Soils, Brown Soils and Chestnut Soils with Capability Classes VI and VII. 3. Slopes and Soil Erosion Class. In all Sub-Catchments except Oltu there appear to be moderately strong positive correlation between slopes and Soil Erosion Class. In Oltu the
A - 40
correlations between slopes and Soil Erosion Class, if any, are weakly inverse. In Upper Coruh Sub-Catchment: most MCs have large proportions of Erosion Classes 1 and 2 correlated with large proportions of gentle slopes less than 30%. 4. Geological Type and Soil Erosion Class. It appears that no strong correlations between the common rock types and soil erosion are evident, except there may be a weak positive correlation between the occurrence of Upper Cretaceous Volcanic Facies and Soil Erosion Class 3 in Berta and Lower Coruh Sub-Catchments. However, recent careful examination of the geology in each MC as shown in the new and more detailed 1:500,000 scale geological map and on field observations indicates that the major control of natural rates of weathering and production of sediments and bedloads appears to be largely related to the complexity of the geological types and structures, the amount of faulting and the degree of stratification of the rocks.
A.2.9 Dams and Sedimentation
(1) Introduction
The discharges of suspended sediments and bedloads which move down the Coruh River and its tributaries will inevitably influence the effective operation and lifespans of the planned hydroelectric dams. Each dam is designed to have a specified volume of “dead storage” at the bottom of the lake behind the dam, from which the water will not normally be used for power generation. The variable volume of water above the “dead storage” is called the “active storage”, and may be used for power generation, irrigation and discharge of surplus water downstream to the next dam. The volume occupied by “dead storage” may thus be filled with sediments and bedloads over an uncertain period of time without great harm to the operation of the dam. When this volume is filled, sediments will then start to reduce the available volume of “active storage”. The operation of the dam, and its effective lifespan, will then be progressively affected.
The Government of Turkey may eventually construct as many as 15 major dams on the Coruh River and some of its tributaries (Tables 2.15, 2.16, 2.17 and the two attached Figures), together with a large number of other hydraulic engineering structures such as tunnels, sediment basins, pipelines and small weirs. The dam at the highest altitude will be Laleli, with a top water level at 1,480 m above sea level, and the lowest Muratli, at 96 m above sea level, the whole sequence therefore utilizing a combined fall of 1,384 m. Approximately 10.474 billion kWh of energy will be produced from 3,189 MW of generating capacity. At the present time, the three lowest altitude dams (Muratli, Borcka and Deriner) are being constructed, and planning is proceeding for some of the others.
According to information from the Artvin Municipality, the dams being constructed or planned on the lower reaches of the Coruh River will affect one District, 79 villages and two Mahalessi. Approximately 20% of the total population of the Province is currently living in
A - 41
the areas which will be directly affected by the dams and their lakes. Some 40% of the land which produces fruit and vegetables will eventually be under water which, among other effects, is strongly discouraging new investments in horticultural production.
(2) Data
Some hydrological data, also relevant to this Section, has been presented in Table 2.5 in Section 2.4. The average sediment discharges at nine measuring stations ranged from as low as 61 t/km2/yr to as high as 653 t/km2/yr in different Sub-Catchments. Additional information from DSI has been summarized in Tables 2.15 and 2.16. Some additional information about sediment discharges was presented by Gunduz (2001) in his book Coruh Havzasi ve Artvin (p.70), and has been reproduced here in Table 2.17.
(3) Discussion
The average annual sediment inputs shown in Tables 2.16 and 2.17 probably do not include bedloads, as these are extremely difficult to measure. Dividing the “dead storage” volume by the average annual sediment input does not provide a reliable estimate of the lifespan of the dam, as all upstream dams will trap the sediment from that portion of the catchment which directly contributes to that dam. For example, Tortum Golu (which formed naturally behind a huge landslide) is trapping a large volume of sediments which would otherwise ultimately be deposited in the next downstream dam. In Table 2.16 the catchment areas attributable to the three dams are calculated as the total area above the dam, rather than the area above the dam but below the next upstream dam.
Nevertheless, it is clear from Tables 2.5 (in Section 2.4) and 2.16 and 2.17 that some of the Sub-Catchments are discharging very large amounts of sediment, measured as both t/km2/yr or m3/km2/yr and as absolute annual amounts at the damsites in m3/yr. The catchment above Station 2322 on the Coruh River at Altinsu includes most of the Coruh catchment and is discharging about 7 million tonnes of sediment annually at 422 t/km2/yr. The Oltu Suyu at Coskunlar has a much smaller catchment but discharges about 1.5 million tonnes annually at a similar rate. The Murgul Cayi at Erenkoy (Station 2339) is discharging about 200,000 tonnes annually from a very small catchment (298 km2) at a rate of 653 t/km2/yr. The rocks in this catchment (LC-03) are mainly Eocene Volcanic Facies and Flysch, and the soils are Red- Yellow Podzolic Soils – almost the only occurrence of these soils in the Coruh River catchment. The Soil Erosion Classes are 2 (20.2% of the catchment) and 3 (72.1% of the catchment). The Land Capability Class is VI or VII. It is probable that a major cause of the extremely high measured rate of sediment discharge is rapid erosion of the Red-Yellow Podzolic soils.
A - 42
In addition to sheet and gully erosion, other sources of suspended sediment include bank erosion, mass movements (landslides) and erosion from roadside banks and fills. Every effort should be made to control discharge of sediments from roadworks.
Finally, in relation to soil conservation and discharges of sediments, it is relevant to consider the “ownership” of the dams. The Study Team does not have sufficient information about whether the dams will be owned solely by DSI, or whether some forms of “Build-Operate- Transfer” (BOT), “Build-Operate-Own-Transfer” (BOOT), or other arrangements, will apply in different ways for different periods to the different dams. The matter is relevant because it affects the incentives for the (permanent or temporary, and State or private) owner of the dams to participate in catchment protection and erosion control during the period of “ownership”. After the period of private “ownership”, if any, will DSI inherit a partly sedimented dam with reduced “dead and active storage”? There may be a case for considering a suite of incentives, disincentives, rewards and penalties for the company, if any, during the period of ownership and control of the dam. Does ownership and control also carry responsibilities for soil conservation and erosion control of the catchment above the dam? If so, in what ways and for how long a period?
(4) Summary of Findings
1. The Government of Turkey may eventually construct as many as 15 major dams on the Coruh River and some of its tributaries, together with a large number of other hydraulic engineering structures. Approximately 10.474 billion kWh of energy will be produced from 3,189 MW of generating capacity. The three lowest altitude dams (Muratli, Borcka and Deriner) are now being constructed, and planning is proceeding for most of the others. 2. The dams on the lower reaches of the Coruh River will affect one District, 79 villages and two mahalessi. Approximately 20% of the total population of the Province is currently living in the areas which will be directly affected by the dams and their lakes. Some 40% of the land which produces fruit and vegetables will eventually be under water. 3. The discharges of suspended sediments and bedloads which move down the Coruh River and its tributaries will inevitably influence the effective operation and lifespans of the planned hydroelectric dams. 4. Some of the Sub-Catchments are discharging very large amounts of sediment. Some measured amounts are: 7 million tonnes of sediment annually at 422 t/km2/yr from the catchment above Altinsu on the Coruh River; about 1.5 million tonnes annually at a similar rate from the Oltu Suyu at Coskunlar; and about 200,000 tonnes annually from the small catchment (LC-03) of the Murgul Cayi at Erenkoy at a rate of 653 t/km2/yr. It is probable that a major cause of this extremely high measured rate of sediment discharge from this MC is rapid erosion of the Red-Yellow Podzolic soils. 5. In addition to sheet and gully erosion, other sources of suspended sediment include bank erosion, mass movements (landslides) and erosion from roadside banks and fills. Every effort should be made to control discharge of sediments from roadworks.
A - 43
6. Finally, in relation to soil conservation and discharges of sediments, it is relevant to consider the “ownership” of the dams, because it affects the incentives for the (permanent or temporary, and State or private) owner of the dams to participate in catchment protection and erosion control during the period of “ownership”. There may be a case for considering a suite of incentives, disincentives, rewards and penalties for the company, if any, during the period of ownership and control of the dam, if ownership and control also carries responsibilities for soil conservation and erosion control of the catchment above the dam for some period of time.
Table A.2.15 General information on the proposed dams on the Coruh River and its tributaries
River or Name of Dam Base Level Top Water Lake Volume Average Stream (m above Level (million m3) Discharge of sea level) (m above sea River or level) Stream (m3/second) Coruh Muratli 56 96 75 192 Coruh Borcka 103 185 419 179 Coruh Deriner 190 392 1969 154 Coruh Artvin 380 500 167 122 Coruh Yusufeli 496 710 2130 120 Coruh Arkun 811 935 283 57 Coruh Aksu 933 1042 184 48 Coruh Gullubag 1090 1147 20 42 Coruh Ispir 1262 1342 367 28 Coruh Laleli 1363 1480 969 28 Oltu Ayvali 810 930 355 26 Oltu Olur 1025 1105 294 21 Berta Baglik 467 530 7.3 25 Berta Bayram 635 740 133 19 Barhal Altiparmak 1090 1150 8 7 Source: DSI
Table A.2.16 Detailed information for three dams on the Coruh River, in order downstream from Artvin to the Turkish border.
Name of Thalweg Crest Catchment Passive Active Average Damsite Average Dam Height Height Area Volume Volume Annual Average Annual (m above (m (km2) (million (million Sediment Annual Sediment sea level) above m3) m3) Yield Sediment Input sea 1965-81 Yield (m3/yr) level) (t/yr/km2) (m3/yr/km2) Deriner 207 397 18,369 882.05 1,197.4 553 462 7,655,340 Borcka 86 189 19,255 81.42 150.78 553 473 8,247,322 Muratli 56 100 19,748 17.83 56.95 553 462 8,480,417 Source: DSI
A - 44
Table A.2.17 Sediment discharges at the planned damsites (from Gunduz, 2001)
Dam, and Top Water Level Annual Total Sediment Yield Average Annual Sediment Yield (m a.s.l.) (m3/km2/yr from catchment) at Damsite (m3/yr) Laleli (1480) 153 728,280 Ispir (1342) 173 882,404 Gullubag (1147) 187 1,106,180 Aksu-Yenivan (1042) 201 1,278,159 Cetinbogaz 201 1,329,695 Karakale 205 1,404,865 Yusufeli, Inali (710) 402 6,132,108 Zeytinlik 413 6,432,888 Artvin (Deriner?) (392) 470 8,642,830 Borcka (185) 479 9,050,705 Muratli (96) 509 10,051,732
A.3 ISSUES, POLICIES, STRATEGIES, MEASURES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOIL CONSERVATION IN THE CORUH RIVER CATCHMENT
A.3.1 Issues and Policies
The first question to be asked about natural resource management in the Coruh River catchment with respect to soil conservation must be:
“Does the catchment exhibit soil erosion which is of so severe a nature and so extensive in its effects as to require considerable attention to natural resource rehabilitation and continuing management, using the best available soil conservation techniques and sufficient funds to achieve this?”
The answer, judging by the information in Chapter 2, is obviously in the affirmative. The second question must then be:
“Is it possible to rehabilitate and to arrest all or most of the mild, moderate and severe soil erosion using improved soil conservation techniques?”
The answer in relation to work in the Coruh River catchment must be qualified, in that while appropriate techniques are available and have been applied for many years, their success has been somewhat mixed and there are some doubts whether cost-effective methods can be applied by both the relevant State agencies and by the other “land managers” – the villagers. A rigorous assessment of the past achievements in the work on soil conservation, control of soil erosion and afforestation which have been undertaken by the State agencies is needed.
In this respect, it is very unfortunate that there has been virtually no applied scientific research by any institution in Turkey on assessing the real effectiveness of all the time, money and effort which has been expended on controlling soil erosion in all the forest lands in Turkey.
A - 45
The baseline status of sediment discharge, and the impacts of erosion control measures on reducing continuing discharge below the baseline level, are largely unknown in any reliable scientific sense.
The Key Issues in relation to soil conservation then become:
1. Whether erosion control measures and soil conservation can be both technically-effective and cost-effective in reducing both the degradation of soil qualities and the output of suspended sediments, and in improving soil productivity. 2. Whether it will be possible to devise rational, effective and cost-effective scales of erosion control, natural resource rehabilitation and continuing natural resource management for use in the Coruh River catchment. 3. Whether active participation by villagers in the effective use of soil conservation measures, combined with other land management measures, can rehabilitate and improve natural conditions and the productivity of forests, rangelands and arable lands in the Coruh River catchment.
Several subsidiary issues in relation to soil erosion and soil conservation in the catchment are listed below. The first four have been highlighted by the World Bank in its recent Forestry Sector Review (Report No. 22458-TU; June 27, 2001).
1. The ways in which measures for ensuring institutional cooperation and villager participation can be introduced to achieve effective soil conservation. This issue includes consideration of the working methods and institutional arrangements employed by AGM and OGM (and, to a lesser extent, ORKOY and MPG), and also ways of ensuring that some other agencies (such as MARA) are also participating. 2. The legislative, regulatory and administrative environment required to ensure that cooperative activities and participatory management do in fact occur and are embedded permanently into operational methods. 3. Whether it is possible to realize the opportunities for combining measures for poverty alleviation with effective measures for soil conservation, and possibly also to involve the private sector. To date there has been very little involvement of the private sector in natural resource management, even though some legislative, administrative and financial support measures have been introduced by the State. 4. With respect to controlling resource degradation, the challenge is to: (i) realize the economic benefits of sustainable forest management; and (ii) realize the benefits to forest villagers of association with efforts to promote sustainable management of the lands from which they too draw their living. 5. DSI is currently planning and constructing five large dams on the River and some of its tributaries, some of which will eventually flood a large number of villages and the riparian arable lands from which they currently derive a high proportion of their livelihoods. This is an immediate impact, but will also have the effect of forcing these
A - 46
people (assuming they continue to live in their current locations, but at a higher altitude) into greater relative dependence on the higher altitude rangelands and forests. This is likely to exacerbate landscape degradation, including soil erosion, on those sites. 6. The load of suspended sediments and coarser bedloads resulting from soil erosion and mass land movements (landslides) that are currently carried by the tributaries of the Coruh River downstream into lakes formed behind the new dams. The sediments will decrease the volume of the “dead storage” in the lakes, and might in due course diminish the “active storage” volume upon which power generation depends. The effective lifespans of the dams, and their hydroelectric potential, largely depend upon the rates of sedimentation. 7. It has been tacitly assumed by most soil conservationists that there are positive correlations between improved village and household livelihoods and improved soil conservation in adjacent catchments. In other words, if villagers are helped to achieve better livelihoods they will automatically manage the adjacent lands better so that there is less degradation. This assertion has probably been proved in a limited number of recent projects in Turkey, but cannot be assumed to be correct in all cases. 8. The sustainability of soil conservation interventions has not been tested in any soil conservation project in Turkey. This may be because most such activities (whether or not they have been undertaken within an externally-supported development project) are mostly quite recent. 9. The environmental impacts of most soil conservation activities, assuming they are properly planned and executed, must presumably be largely benign and beneficial, and without serious detrimental environmental impacts. After all, this is why they are undertaken. However, these assertions should be examined and proven. 10. The new Pastures Law is supposed to improve rangeland management by delineation of cadastral boundaries, followed by annual assessment at selected sites of pasture productivities, calculation of carrying capacities, and allocation of carrying capacities to livestock owners in villages. Fees are payable by the village, from which 25% is returned to the village and the balance retained by MARA. The technical basis for these determinations is suspect. Pasture productivity at a site is assessed only once a year during a period of 15 days near the start of the grazing period. Grazing is excluded from a small site by using a cage, and the amount of plant material which grows in this period is clipped, dried and weighed. From this single estimate it is then assumed that the pastures will produce a calculated amount of plant material throughout the grazing season. This is obviously incorrect, because the plant growth during this period may not be representative of the usual conditions at that site (the weather conditions may be more or less typical) and because pasture growth will always vary greatly from week to week according to the seasonal conditions and grazing intensities. Because the calculation of pasture productivity is suspect, the calculation of carrying capacity will also be incorrect. 11. Currently the Government is supporting the agricultural sector with direct income supports, partly financed by the World Bank. The farmers are receiving TL 135 million for every hectare that they claim to be “using” up to a limit of 50 ha, regardless of the
A - 47
ownership status. Those who claim to have used a plot of land receive the payment, even if they do not have ownership title. This new system has had two extremely deleterious effects on soil erosion. Firstly, marginal plots of land which were abandoned (possibly because the farmers out-migrated from the village) and have rehabilitated themselves naturally over the last decade or so are now being utilised to receive the subsidy. A second unintended consequence of the new subsidy arrangements is that farmers who convert pastures to ploughed land, thus potentially exacerbating soil erosion, produce witnesses to state that the land has been continuously farmed. The Commissions which were set up to verify such claims are not able or willing to do so.
(Some of the information in Items 10 and 11 above is by courtesy of Dr Hasan Gencaga, Team Member)
Therefore, an Operational Policy which can be derived from these issues is:
That soil conservation activities which attempt to alleviate and rehabilitate current levels of soil erosion and other forms of soil degradation should be undertaken within the Coruh River catchment to the greatest feasible extent, using the best available field techniques, and effective participatory planning and cooperation between State agencies and the villagers. These activities should be planned and implemented where erosion is assessed as threatening, severe, active and reversible, and where the villagers are willing to help implement the proposed activities.
A.3.2 Strategies
The strategies for implementing this policy, in order to address the issues described above, include:
1. Change the economic dependence of villagers on their adjacent forests and rangelands. 2. Arrest the cycle of landscape degradation through improved, participatory, rangeland management. 3. Use an approach to erosion control and rehabilitation of degraded soils which addresses a “total mini-catchment” within any selected MC. This implies studying all of the mini- catchment (a catchment on, say, a sixth-order stream, perhaps including 200 to 1,000 hectares) and then planning integrated and comprehensive soil conservation measures for the whole mini-catchment. 4. An alternative approach is to employ a “hotspot” approach. In other words, attention is devoted to rehabilitating only the very worst places. These would include the very steepest gullies and would include advanced and expensive methods of torrent control. It assumes that soil erosion in the “hotspots” is reversible, which is a questionable assumption.
A - 48
5. Another alternative is to attempt to rehabilitate only the areas which are not so badly eroded that their status can fairly easily be reversed. 6. The new Decision-Making Methodology described in Section 5.1 of this Working Paper will greatly assist in determining whether any given “hotspot”, of whatever size, requires rehabilitation and is able to be rehabilitated. 7. It is important to devise technical instruments which can be undertaken at low cost per hectare (lower than present methods), and thus treat more hectares for the same amount of money. 8. Some attention could be devoted to assessing the severity of mass earth movements, and their contribution to suspended sediments and bedloads. 9. Some of the past and current activities in erosion control have been initiated largely as a result of public concern about flood control, often only after deaths by drowning have occurred. While this might be understandable from the point of view of politicians and the public, this approach should be examined to determine whether it is the most rational way of allocating scarce resources to soil conservation. 10. Likewise, the severity and extent of riverbank erosion, its contribution to suspended sediments and bedloads, and the effectiveness of attempts to arrest riverbank erosion with engineering structures and bankside plantings should be examined. 11. It is very important to start well-planned scientific research to measure the long-term impact of erosion control and rehabilitation on the actual output of suspended sediments from catchments in which these expensive activities have been undertaken.
A.3.3 Measures for Implementation
Implementing any of these strategies will generally require various measures, which might include all or some of the following:
1. Closing up areas of land (such as the delineated forest areas and their included rangelands) in such ways as to effectively exclude villagers from entering and using the land. The feasibility of these measures is problematical. The acceptability of these measures to the villagers will also be problematical in most cases, unless the villagers are encouraged to examine such measures in the light of their own best interests, and if indeed such measures are recognized by the villagers as being in their own best interests. 2. In this respect, it is always important to recognize that villagers must be actively supported to develop compensatory income-generating activities if any conventional (current) source of income from forests and rangelands is threatened by permanent closure or by limiting access. Such compensatory mechanisms could include intensification of arable land use close to the village, promotion of new crops, more attention to marketing of current and new crops, better veterinary care, assistance with better animal husbandry for existing types and breeds of livestock, and promotion of other income-generating activities such as apiculture, horticulture, plastic greenhouses and aquaculture. However, before any of these activities can be promoted and adopted,
A - 49
each must be shown to be economically viable and sustainable in the long term. They must also be acceptable to villagers on other grounds, such as labour availability and integration with the current farming systems and practices. This will require applied research and field demonstrations. 3. Changing the economic dependence of villagers on adjacent forests and rangelands is an important strategy. Increasing village incomes from improved agriculture, forestry and land management have been assumed to improve villager management of the adjacent natural resources, as discussed above. This strategy assumes that the participation of villagers in improved soil conservation (both by involvement in soil erosion control and in better management of rangelands and forests through better livestock management) can be improved through convincing them that their own best interests would be served if cooperation and participation were increased. This is not easy and will, among other measures, require considerable education and training of village administrators, and farmers and shepherds. 4. Regardless of whether the cooperation and participation of villagers in the above measures can be assured, it will still be important to promote rehabilitation of large areas of certain types of rangelands whose condition is probably reversible. In fact, villagers are likely to welcome this activity, but only if they are convinced that they will directly and rapidly benefit from the better pasture resources. 5. All proposed strategies and instruments for soil conservation require monitoring and evaluation against objective baseline conditions to ensure that they are in fact effective in achieving benefits (above the baseline) in relation to soil conservation, among any other benefits they might provide.
A.3.4 Constraints and Opportunities for Soil Conservation
The constraints on improved soil conservation in the Coruh River catchment include physical (ecological) constraints, socio-economic constraints and legal/administrative constraints.
Physical constraints may include:
• bare soils, with virtually no vegetative cover; • shallow soils; • generally, soils of poor fertility; • generally, soils of high erodibility; • steep to very steep slopes; • extensive gully erosion; • severe torrents in gullies; • harsh climates, in terms of low rainfall, high rainfall intensity in storms, poor absorption of rainfall and rapid runoff, poor water retention in shallow soils, and poor retention of snowmelt; and
A - 50
• harsh climates, in terms of intensely cold winters and hot dry summers, which impose very short growing seasons.
Socio-economic constraints may include:
• conservative and suspicious attitudes of villagers to proposed soil conservation activities; • the economic dependence of villagers on continued exploitation of the forests and rangelands, despite the continued degradation of these resources and the apparent irrationality of the exploitation; • the lack of viable, sustainable, income-generating alternatives to current land use practices; • the lack of initiative and self-reliance often exhibited by villagers; • the continued expectations by villagers that the State will assist them to overcome their problems; and • financial constraints on field activities in soil conservation faced by State agencies.
Legal/administrative constraints may include:
• lack of clarity in legal boundaries of various types of lands; • continued conflicts over these boundaries, and the consequent protracted legal actions; • lack of acceptance of any legal boundaries; • lack of effective means of enforcing legal boundaries and of enforcing compliance with legal restraints on entry and use of various types of lands; • lack of cooperation between and within State agencies; • the need for capacity-building in relation to the principles and practices of effective soil conservation among both staff of State agencies and among villagers; and • the need for effective methods of participatory planning and encouragement of cooperative soil conservation in the field.
The opportunities for mitigating and (if possible) overcoming these constraints depend on addressing each constraint to the greatest feasible extent. The aim must always be to attempt to improve:
• participatory planning and cooperation; • the technical methods and measures; • the cost-effectiveness of technical methods and measures; • the legal instruments for soil conservation; • the administrative methods and cooperation between and within State agencies; and • the levels of trust and cooperation between State agencies and the villagers.
A.3.5 Soil Conservation and Landscape Rehabilitation
A - 51
Table 3.1 describes all the types of landscapes and soil erosion problems present in the Study Area. It does not include descriptions of forested areas or of various types of Protected Areas.
Table 3.1 first classifies landscapes into those subject to high rates of natural (geological) erosion and those subject to high rates of accelerated (man-made) erosion. The former include: steep bare rocky areas; mass earth movements; floods; mudslides; and coarse rocky debris in streams and as deposits on arable land. The latter include: high and lower rangelands (yayla and mer’a, in four classes of seriously degraded, poor rangelands, average rangelands and good rangelands); meadows; streambanks; and arable lands (in three classes of non-active erosion, but potentially erodible, active erosion and discharging suspended sediments, and lands buried by coarse rocky debris). Table 3.1 also describes the impacts of road construction and maintenance on soil erosion.
It is important to recognize that in many parts of the Coruh River catchment very high rates of natural erosion are occurring, which might in some places be hard to distinguish from high rates of accelerated erosion. The two may, of course, occur on the same site and will thus be mutually even more destructive.
Table 3.1 also describes the causes and trends of soil erosion observable in each landscape type, proposes various solutions to alleviate the causes and mentions some of the techniques which could be used to implement the solutions. The agencies responsible for implementing the techniques are mentioned, with strong emphasis on the role of the villagers as the real land managers.
A.3.6 The Status of Soil Erosion in the Six Selected Micro-Catchments
The Study Team has assessed the status of soil erosion and degradation of natural resources in the six selected MCs. The assessments represent the summarized observations from (i) field inspections by the Study Team; and (ii) discussions with villagers, MEF staff and other stakeholders. They have been reported as Annex 2 in each of the six MC Plans.
Each Annex 2 is reproduced in this Working Paper, collected together as Table 3.2, to illustrate the actual conditions in the field. Table 3.2 therefore provides specific examples of the more generalized trends and descriptions in Table 3.1.
A - 52
Table A.3.1 Soil Conservation, Landscape Rehabilitation and Natural Resource Management
SOIL CONSERVATION, LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
1: LANDSCAPES WITH HIGH RATES OF NATURAL EROSION
PROBLEM/ CAUSES/TRENDS SOLUTIONS TECHNIQUES/AGENCIES SITUATION (Why is the problem occurring, and (What should be done, when and where?) (How should it be done, and who what is the trend?) is responsible for doing it?) Steep bare rocky These are a result of natural geomorphological Little can be done to change the process itself, but the The only useful techniques to rehabilitate these areas processes. If overgrazing and deforestation continues, trend can be reversed if overgrazing and deforestation areas are to minimize the removal of adjacent (For example, the trend is towards increasing the area of these slopes. are arrested or mitigated. vegetation and to encourage natural regeneration, Uzundere and particularly of Populus tremula. Yusufeli) Mass earth Large rock landslides are a result of natural Nothing can be done to minimize large rock Both MEF and villagers can assist by encouraging movements geomorphological processes, such as earthquakes and landslides. Soil slumping might be minimized by and maintaining dense stands of trees. GDRS and (landslides and soil rock weathering. Localised soil slumping is generally maintaining a dense stand of trees with strong roots. DSI may be able to build civil engineering slumping) the result of saturation of some types of susceptible soil It may be necessary to move infrastructures out of the structures which might have some benefit in
A - 53 (For example,Ispir, profiles during and after heavy rain. In both cases the danger zone. Expensive civil engineering structures localized cases. Upper Oltu and trends are neither better nor worse. Any naturally may be effective in mitigating the effects of mass Where villagers are already utilizing these areas, the Upper Yusufeli) unstable area will threaten any infrastructures lower on earth movements on humans, but only if the problem possibility of loss of land and infrastructures must the slope. is not too massive. be recognized.
Floods Floods are the result of high rainfalls at high intensities Floods can be minimized, but not completely Any interventions which maintain a high percentage (For example, falling on steep bare rocky areas and producing eliminated, by maintaining a high percentage cover of cover of trees, shrubs and pastures high in the Tutmac and Ballica immediate flashy runoff. The trends may be better or trees, shrubs and pastures and absorbent soil profiles. catchment, and elsewhere, will help to minimize [Oltu], and worse, depending on the success of land management in The aim is to slow the runoff as much as possible and rapid runoff. Terracing might be effective in Celtikduzu maintaining a high percentage cover of trees, shrubs and encourage slow release of water. The treatments are slowing the runoff, increasing infiltration and [Yusufeli]) pastures and absorbent soil profiles. Damage to most effective if first applied high in the catchment, retaining higher soil moisture contents. For streambanks and infrastructures from floods, usually and then working down the catchment. Physical maximum effectiveness, all or most of the upper lower in the catchment, is getting worse in some sub- damage to streambanks and infrastructures can be and middle catchment must be treated. The catchments in the Study area. alleviated to some extent by appropriate civil responsibility lies with the villagers, AGM and engineering structures on streams, and by streambank OGM. AGM may also be able to establish planting. streambank plantations which may stabilize erodible areas. GDRS and DSI may be able to build civil engineering structures which might have some benefit in localized cases.
PROBLEM/ CAUSES/TRENDS SOLUTIONS TECHNIQUES/AGENCIES SITUATION (Why is the problem occurring, and (What should be done, when and where?) (How should it be done, and who what is the trend?) is responsible for doing it?) Mudslides Mudslides are the result of high rainfalls at high Mudslides can be minimized only by improving the Any interventions which maintain a high percentage (For example, intensities falling on unstable fine sedimentary rocks stability of the vulnerable parts of the catchment, by cover of trees, shrubs and pastures on the vulnerable Yenikoy [Yusufeli]) such as mudstones and sandstones (and colluvial maintaining a high percentage cover of trees, shrubs areas will help to minimize rapid runoff. The deposits from them) and unstable fine-textured soils, and pastures. In some localized cases it may be responsibility lies with the villagers, AGM and producing immediate runoff which carries a massive possible to divert mudslides into less harmful places OGM. While OGM implements appropriate forest amount of mud. The trends may be better or worse, with civil engineering structures, but the best action is conservation and improvement techniques, AGM depending on the success of land management in to treat the cause of the problem rather than trying to may also be able to establish plantations which maintaining a high percentage cover of trees, shrubs and minimize the effects of the problem. should stabilize erodible areas. GDRS and DSI may pastures, especially on unstable types of rocks and soils. be able to build civil engineering structures which might have some benefit in localized cases.
Coarse rocky These are the result of high rainfalls at high intensities Deposits of coarse rocky debris are important to Any interventions which maintain a high percentage debris in streams falling on unstable rocks and producing immediate villagers in two ways: (i) they raise streambeds above cover of trees, shrubs and pastures on the vulnerable and as deposits on flashy runoff with very high velocities and power. surrounding arable land and exacerbate flooding, areas will help to minimize rapid and powerful arable land Floods cover arable lands and deposit debris. The which then (ii) deposits additional debris outside the runoff. The responsibility lies with the villagers, (For example, trends may be better or worse, depending on the success stream channel. This problem can only be alleviated AGM and OGM. AGM may be able to establish
A - 54 Kirazli and of land management in maintaining a high percentage by addressing the causes of the high discharge floods, plantations which should stabilize erodible Altincanak cover of trees, shrubs and pastures. Much of the coarse by maintaining a high percentage cover of trees, streambanks and stream beds. GDRS and DSI may [Uzundere] and rocky debris seen in the streams is being re-mobilised shrubs and pastures in the uplands. The treatments be able to build civil engineering structures which Orcuk [Oltu]) and transported from debris already in the streambeds are most effective if first applied high in the might have some benefit in localized cases. GDRS and streambanks, especially where the stream is eroding catchment, and then working down the catchment. may be able to bulldoze deposits back into the old colluvial fans. Burial of arable land can be alleviated to some extent streambed and at the same time improve the channel by appropriate civil engineering structures on to minimize future damage to adjacent arable land. streams, and by streambank planting. Bulldozing of deposits back into the streambed may be required, but there will always be some damage to the arable land.
2: LANDSCAPES WITH HIGH RATES OF ACCELERATED EROSION
(Use the Decision-Making Methodology to classify the severity of the problem, and to decide whether the erosion is active or non-active, whether the erosion is reversible and whether the proposed solutions are acceptable to the villagers.)
PROBLEM/ CAUSES/TRENDS SOLUTIONS TECHNIQUES/AGENCIES SITUATION (Why is the problem occurring, and (What should be done, when and where?) (How should it be done, and who what is the trend?) is responsible for doing it?) High and lower rangelands (yayla and mer’a) Seriously degraded These areas may resemble the steep bare rocky areas The only feasible solution is to fence the area and Fencing and closing from grazing for many years. rangelands on described above. Sheet and gully erosion will be remove the stock permanently, hopefully allowing This is the responsibility of the villagers. The difficult sites. These severe, and unless mitigating action is taken the trend some natural regeneration to establish and start to applicable techniques include participatory areas may also be will be towards even more serious degraded conditions. rehabilitate the area. These areas produce so little assessment of the state of the natural resources by called “hotspots”. Many of these areas can be permanently maintained in feed that their removal from grazing has no economic villagers and AGM staff, and enforceable village The estimated dry their degraded condition by occasional grazing by even consequences anyway. The solutions are entirely the agreements on land use. MARA will probably matter production at one animal for a week or two. responsibility of the villagers. become involved, through the operations of the present is virtually If it is decided (after using the Decision-Making If the “hotspots” are treatable, then a range of Pastures Law. zero. Methodology) that any “hotspot” has some potential for solutions, including fencing, elimination of grazing Alternatively, the “hotspots” might be treated with rehabilitation then appropriate actions should be taken, and soil conservation, can be implemented. terracing and/or planting with species of grasses, as specified in the Methodology. herbs, shrubs and trees chosen by the villagers. A - 55 Some gully plugging can be done.
Poor rangelands Severely degraded pastures due to long continued over- Controlled grazing is essential, probably combined If improvements are planned, agreement with (40% of area). The grazing. The trends are generally stable or getting with closure of the land with or without fences. It is villagers is essential. It may be possible to re-seed estimated dry matter worse if over-grazing is continuing, but in places where possible to re-seed and apply fertilizers, using the and apply fertilizers, but experience appears to production at present grazing intensities have decreased slightly over the last species of plants preferred by the livestock, which show that this is not cost-effective. Use the species is about 300 decade some of these pastures are recovering to an have disappeared from the pasture due to over- of plants which have disappeared from the pasture kg/ha/an. average level of productivity. These areas are either grazing. However, local experience with this solution due to over-grazing. It may also be necessary to already exhibiting moderate sheet erosion and some has been disappointing, with rapid loss of the break the ground surface with light hand or gully erosion, or are potentially erodible if grazing introduced species, probably due to limited root mechanical cultivation. This technique can only be intensities do not decrease. development in seasonal droughts. Unsuitable (non- used on suitable slopes and soils, and certainly not local) species and varieties have also failed in trials. on unstable sites. In this case, close the site if It is necessary to close the land to grazing while the possible and allow it to regenerate naturally for new seedlings are establishing, and this is generally many years, or at the least persuade the villagers to not acceptable to farmers. Gully plugging can be severely restrict grazing, with or without fences. done. Some gully plugging can be done. AGM is If these solutions are successful, fodder productivity responsible for rangelands within, near and above might increase to as much as 1,500 kgDM/ha/an. forests as well as for OT areas, but in the future (under the Pastures Law) MARA will be responsible for improvement of most of the rangeland in OT areas.
PROBLEM/ CAUSES/TRENDS SOLUTIONS TECHNIQUES/AGENCIES SITUATION (Why is the problem occurring, and (What should be done, when and where?) (How should it be done, and who what is the trend?) is responsible for doing it?) Average rangelands The main cause of the relatively low productivity is The most important solution is to alleviate the cause Work closely with the farmers to implement a (50% of area). The over-grazing, and grazing too early, too late and for too of the problem by controlled grazing, using two main mutually-acceptable program of controlled grazing estimated dry matter long a period each year. The pasture plants are rarely interventions: rotational grazing (perhaps 10 out of – both rotational grazing and limiting the grazing production at present able to establish strong root systems, nor to set seed. every 30 days, or even one out of every three years) period. Water troughs might assist in better is about 1,200 The trends are generally stable or getting worse if over- and reducing the grazing period each year down to distribution of grazing pressures. kg/ha/an. grazing is continuing, but in places where grazing about 120 days. The critical period is in the Spring, Establish small demonstrations of the benefits of intensities have decreased slightly over the last decade when pastures must not be grazed for at least a month fertilizing and re-seeding with local species on some of these pastures are recovering to a higher level after the snow melts. If the grazing period is to be suitable slopes and sites. of productivity. There may be slight sheet erosion and reduced from 6 or 7 (or even more) months each year The responsibility of working with the villagers to some gully erosion, but generally the current erosion is to only 4 months, then a complementary program of establish better grazing practices rests with AGM relatively slight. Potentially, the sites are still erodible. increased forage production on the lowlands must be and MARA. introduced. It is possible to improve pasture Methods for increasing fodder production from productivity: some fertilizers and re-seeding with rangeland pastures, and also for improving forage local species can improve pasture productivity production from lowlands, will generally be the considerably. Fodder productivity might increase to responsibility of MARA, but in the Forest Villages as much as 2,700 kgDM/ha/an. and high rangelands AGM can be the most
A - 56 appropriate agency unless MARA is directly involved in the project. Stall feeding should be encouraged, especially for cattle, but if large flocks of sheep are present it is unrealistic to expect that they will be kept and fed inside for up to 8 months.
Good rangelands These rangelands are not common, and are probably the The main intervention is to reduce the length of the Work closely with the farmers to implement a (10% of area). The result of rational grazing patterns employed over many grazing period to no more than 120 days/year, with mutually-acceptable program of controlled grazing estimated dry matter years by sensible farmers and villagers. There is some particular attention to stopping grazing in early – both rotational grazing and limiting the grazing production at present field evidence that the area of good rangelands may be Spring. It could be difficult to convince villagers to period. is about 2,500 increasing, but they are still not common. Such refrain from early grazing in Spring if they observe The responsibility of working with the villagers to kg/ha/an. rangelands will probably not exhibit much sheet or apparently high pasture production, but if they give in establish better grazing practices rests with AGM gully erosion. to the temptation of grazing they risk setting the and MARA. pastures back to only average quality. Surplus Methods for increasing fodder production from pastures should be harvested by hand or simple rangeland pastures, and also for improving forage machines where possible (cut-and-carry). production from lowlands, will generally be the Complementary improvement of forage production responsibility of MARA. on low lands will be necessary. Fodder productivity Stall feeding should be encouraged, especially for might increase to as much as 4,000 kgDM/ha/an. cattle, but if large flocks of sheep are present it is unrealistic to expect that they will be kept and fed inside for up to 8 months.
PROBLEM/ CAUSES/TRENDS SOLUTIONS TECHNIQUES/AGENCIES SITUATION (Why is the problem occurring, and (What should be done, when and where?) (How should it be done, and who what is the trend?) is responsible for doing it?) Meadows These areas are generally almost flat and exhibit very The solutions for increased plant production include MARA should be able to assist farmers with advice little erosion. They are intensively used for production better seeds, the use of fertilizers and manures to on better seeds, fertilizers, cultivation methods, of pasture fodder (hay) and forage crops. If they are maintain soil fertility, cultivation, disease control and disease control and havesting methods. GDRS is near streams they may be subject to streambank erosion. appropriate harvesting methods and timing. Higher responsible for irrigation design, installation and If cultivation is up and down the slopes, sheet erosion plant production should allow more cuts of hay each operation. Villagers are responsible for channel can be serious. The general trend will be towards season at the best times for maximum nutrient maintenance. improvement, and irrigation is generally installed to content. Mechanisation of hay cutting is helpful. AGM is generally responsible for streambank improve plant production. Cultivation up and down slopes must be discouraged erosion control, usually by planting poplars and – use contour tillage and possibly terracing if feasible. willows. Streambank protection (by poplars, willows and possibly by levy banks or gabions) may be required.
Streambanks Streambanks generally have fertile alluvial soils which The solutions lie in implementing any erosion control AGM is responsible for planning and implementing are valuable and productive, but erodible. If the upper methods in the upper catchments which will reduce streambank erosion control using trees. catchments have been degraded and are producing large the amount and power of the runoff from intense GDRS and DSI are responsible for any civil amounts of coarse rocky debris, the streambeds will fill storms, and the coarse rocky debris which it carries. engineering works along streams.
A - 57 with debris and will rise, floods will overtop the Stream bank protection with poplars and willows can streambanks and sediments and debris will be deposited be very effective in minimizing bank erosion. on adjacent land.
Arable lands Non-active erosion, This situation occurs on fields which are not frequently These fields should continue to be cultivated as little The responsibility for soil conservation tillage rests but potentially cultivated. Most of the arable soils in the Coruh River as possible. If cultivated, it should if feasible be done with the farmers. MARA should be able assist by erodible catchment are erodible if cultivated and if plant cover is on the contour and not up and down the slope. The training farmers in responsible soil conservation removed. period of exposure of bare soils should be as short as practices such as mimimum tillage, contour tillage possible. Terracing should be considered as a method and other protective techniques. of reducing the slopes of cultivated land.
Active erosion, Fields on even gentle slopes can easily generate sheet, The solutions lie in proper cultivation methods and The responsibility for soil conservation tillage rests discharging rill and gully erosion if badly cultivated and left bare for reducing the length of time the fields are left bare with the farmers. MARA should be able to assist by suspended sediments long periods. (fallow reduction). If sheet and rill erosion are training farmers in responsible soil conservation already evident, cultivation will probably partly repair practices such as minimum tillage, contour tillage the damage. If gullies have developed, gully and other protective techniques. plugging and filling the gullies with unwanted tree branches may slow the water and allow deposition of sediments.
PROBLEM/ CAUSES/TRENDS SOLUTIONS TECHNIQUES/AGENCIES SITUATION (Why is the problem occurring, and (What should be done, when and where?) (How should it be done, and who what is the trend?) is responsible for doing it?) Buried by coarse Large proportions of the limited areas of village arable The solutions lie in implementing all the measures for GDRS is responsible for any physical removal of rocky debris lands are often covered by coarse rocky debris from flood control described above, to minimize the the rocky debris, and re-forming and re-grading the floods. The trends depend on the state of the upper amount and velocity of the runoff from severe storms stream channels. catchments, and the effectiveness of any erosion control and thus reduce the frequency and severity of floods. AGM is responsible for all measures in the upper measures which might have been taken. Arable lands buried under rocky debris may be catchment which will minimize the amount and cleared by bulldozing, but there will always be some velocity of the runoff from severe storms and thus degradation of their quality following this treatment. reduce the frequency and severity of floods.
3: ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Erosion due to road Even though roads occupy a very small proportion of By design, roads are impervious surfaces which must GDRS is responsible for general village road construction and the area of each catchment they are often responsible for shed water. It will never be possible to eliminate the construction and maintenance, and OGM for forest maintenance a disproportionately high contribution of suspended problem of rapid runoff, but it is possible to use the roads. DSI is responsible for roads which service sediments and coarse rocky debris. High intensity rain best available civil engineering practices in design, hydroelectric developments.
A - 58 falls on non-absorbent gravelly and clayey road surfaces construction and maintenance to minimize the All agencies must use the best available civil and immediately runs off, is concentrated at high destructive effects of large amounts of water moving engineering practices in design, construction and velocity into road gutters and the large volumes of water rapidly along gutters and then downslope. maintenance to minimize the destructive effects of then erode the gutters and eventually the downslope Gutters and culverts must be designed for the large amounts of water moving rapidly along gutters soils. probable worst-case storms and must dispose of the and then downslope. Poor road construction and maintenance exacerbate the water downslope in the slowest possible, least problems and the trend is towards further degradation. concentrated, streams flowing in protected beds and banks.
Table A.3.2 The Status of Soil Erosion in the Six Selected Micro-Catchments
Berta Sub-Catchment, Savsat MC (BT-04)
VILLAGE COMMENTS Kirecli (on the The view of the MC from the MC boundary above Duzenli indicates very well many of the Anadali Dere) eroded areas in the MC. Generally, the high yayla is in reasonable condition. The pastures around the saddle could produce hay, using small mechanisation. The hill at the NW end of the saddle is moderately eroded and actively eroding, and could be fenced and protected if villagers allow this. The long ridge to the W and S of the village is eroding and needs attention, together with an area to the N. Hanli (on the The oak regeneration W of Camlica needs attention by encouraging a program of oak Anadali-Hanli coppice treatment. The ridge to the NW of Hanli is very steep and subject to landslides, Dere but little can be done here. The yayla above Hanli is generally in good condition at current grazing intensities. AGM has established a reforestation and erosion control area W of Karaagac which does not seem to be really essential and is only partly successful. Ciftlik (on the This village has a large area of undulating pasture lands from which hay is produced. Cavdarli Dere) There are few problems with soil erosion, apart from a few limited areas on steeper slopes S or E of the village. Savas (on the On the MC boundary. Apparently a recognized area for illicit cutting, outside the MC Cavdarli Dere) boundary. No need for erosion control around the village within the MC. Cavdarli (on the There are 55 households, only 3 of which have sheep. There appear to be few erosion Cavdarli Dere) problems around the village.
General comments from forestry agencies: • The most important problem in the general area is fuelwood. The forest management plans do not take account of any other output from the forests except timber. The planning procedures and instructions must be changed to take account of the other outputs from the forest, such as subsistence fuelwood, biological conservation, water, grazing etc. The forests are not currently providing for the needs of the villagers, including employment. • It is likely that virtually all (90%?) of the Normal Forests (now totaling 4,059 ha) will become conservation forests in the near future. The direct costs of felling and transporting are at least TL 50 m/m3, and the selling price is about TL 80 m/m3, but this does not take into account the considerable overhead costs. Timber production is becoming quite uneconomic in this area. Present production is about 10,000 m3/annum, of which 90% goes to sawmills outside the area, so there will be little impact on the local mills if timber production ceases. • There are also 1,463 ha of Bozuk (degraded) Forest and 8,100 ha of Cok Bozuk (highly degraded) Forest. • The inflexible forest management policies and practices lead to conflicts and contradictions in forest management with respect to villager attitudes. The relations with villagers are generally poor. There is widespread illicit cutting, which might be minimized if the management practices were more sensitive to local needs. • The population is out-migrating and/or is becoming much older, with passive attitudes. There is limited labour available for forest operations. • If these new attitudes and practices in regard to multi-purpose land management (and holistic, basin-wide planning and management) are to become widely accepted, it will be essential to have better cooperation between Government agencies, especially MEF and MARA. • There are poor capabilities for Protected Area planning and management in MEF, which become especially important in the Artvin Province. Villagers are usually strongly opposed to establishment of Protected Areas. • Savsat has considerable areas of rangelands of various qualities, which appear to under-utilised at present. Apart from some localized areas, soil erosion is not particularly serious at present. The yayla above the timberline will probably in due course become the responsibility of MARA under the Pastures Law. It is becoming more obvious that MARA will become the
A - 59
major management agency of areas previously considered the responsibility of MEF. But MARA is not our counterpart agency. • There are some nomadic grazers, mostly from Hopa, who tend to travel through to the Ardanuc area and beyond. • The most fertile land in the Artvin area will soon be under the Deriner and other dams. This will have a severe effect on the productivity of the area, and also on the investment climate. The displaced villagers will have to move further up the inhospitable slopes, which has serious consequences for soil erosion, or will move to town. Research is needed on suitable horticultural and other crops for the higher altitudes and different soils. • The areas of the forests are not decreasing very much at the moment, but the quality and growing stock are deteriorating due to selective illicit cutting, especially for fuelwood. It is thought that some 60,000 steres of fuelwood are cut annually by 66 villages, or perhaps 500 stere/forest village annually. The demand is probably about 20 steres.household, or say 12 m3/household. Better house insulation might reduce fuelwood demand. The existing forests should be closed and treated as “maintenance forests”, with minor thnning to maintain forest vigour and standing volume at about 250 m3/ha. But there may be opposition to this, and the availability of labour at the offered piece rates may be low.
The Main Problems: • Illicit cutting for fuelwood. • Poor availability of labour for maintenance forest operations, at the current offered piece rates for work. • Poor planning for Protected Areas and Forest Management Plans, especially in respect of recognizing village needs. • Need for better cooperation with MARA in relation to rangeland management. • Some limited areas need erosion control and afforestation, and other areas need fencing and protection.
Constraints: • Poor relationships between villagers and MEF. • Poor cooperation with MARA. • Poor planning of forest management and Protected Areas.
Potential for Rehabilitation: • Most areas needing rehabilitation have good potential. • The potential for better maintenance of standing coniferous forests and oak coppice forests depends on cooperation by villagers. • The potential for better rangeland management will depend on MARA, and on cooperation between MARA, MEF and villagers.
A - 60
Middle Coruh Sub-Catchment, Yusufeli MC (MC-03)
VILLAGE (in COMMENTS order of AGM priority) 1. Yenikoy (not in Regarded as a serious problem because three mudslides cover the main road every time MC) there is heavy rain, disrupting traffic for long periods and requiring expensive maintenance. The catchment is relatively small, but obviously unstable. Needs comprehensive study, followed by preparation of an integrated erosion control plan with the villagers. This will only work if the villagers eventually understand the relationship between causes and effects. 2. Koprugoren (not Subject to serious flash flooding from this long steep catchment. The whole long in MC) catchment (from above Yamacuslu to the Coruh River) should be studied and planned as one integrated erosion control project. There are numerous areas which could be treated to rehabilitate hotspots, but the catchment is naturally unstable. Lessons learned will be applicable to Alanbasi. 3. Yamacuslu (not This area was not inspected during the Study, but any effective treatments around this in MC) village will benefit Koprugoren lower in the catchment if they minimize flash runoff. 4. Alanbasi (in The village area is extremely steep and is subject to high rates of natural erosion which are MC). (On the not treatable. On the few suitable sites terracing, reforestation, gully plugging and grazing Hapishar Dere) control should be planned if villagers are willing to participate. Some oak coppicing could be useful. The boundaries to Bakirtepe are not clear and there is much overlapping of grazing between the two villages, which is potentially destructive. 5. Celtikduzu (in This village will be flooded by the Yusufeli Dam within two decades. Investment in MC). (On the agriculture has virtually ceased, and interest in erosion control and better land management Selcisal, Balsuyu is low among the villagers. The area high above the village needs protection, especially Dere, and on the from goats, in order to stimulate some improvement in pastures and natural regeneration. bank of the Coruh Oak coppice needs treatment. This might alleviate flooding, at least to a small extent. River) There is a large area of extreme erosion about 2 km downstream on the right bank of the Coruh River. There are dense stands of poplars on the colluvial fan on which the village is situated. 6. Ilmakyani (in The land high above the village is extremely steep and rocky, and little can be done to MC, but not a minimize natural erosion and rapid runoff. The are immediately above the village (top of chosen village) the colluvial fan) shows moderately active sheet erosion and appears to threaten the village. The area should be fenced, terraced and grazing eliminated to minimize runoff. Dense planting of useful species such as Rosa, Kapari and wild pomegranate should be considered. Immediately S of the village, but not so threatening, is another small colluvial fan which should be fenced, grazing prohibited, planted and natural regeneration encouraged. 7. Kilickaya (in The pollarded oak coppice on the steep slopes NW and SE of the village need treatment to MC). (On the improve productivity and erosion control. There are numerous individual eroded areas all Kilickaya Dere) around the village, and the area obviously suffers heavy and unsustainable grazing and harvesting of fuelwood. The villagers are reputed to resist any activities which interfere with their unimpeded abuse of the land., but they might slowly be convinced by demonstrations that the oak stands could be improved. 8. Bakirtepe (in The village has a few isolated areas of moderate erosion, and there is ample evidence of MC). (On the minor landslides which appear to revegetate naturally. The Normal and Degraded Forest Hapishar Dere) above the village should be improved by simple maintenance silviculture. Grazing control is needed for the rangeland pastures. The land below the village, down to Alanbasi, is steep and rocky, with considerable erosion which is probably not reversible.
General comments from forestry agencies: • The AGM office in Artvin specified 8 “hotspots” in and around the MC which they regard as being important, in this order of priority: 1. Yenikoy (adjacent to MC); 2. Koprugoren (adjacent to MC); 3. Yamacuslu (adjacent to MC); 4. Alanbasi; 5. Celtikduzu; 6. Ilmakyani; 7. Kilickaya; 8. Bakirtepe. It is significant that the three highest priority sites are just outside the MC. All 8 sites are described in the table above.
A - 61
• The real problem in the MC and local area is fuelwood, while protection of Normal Forest is also important. There is virtually no production forestry in the MC. MEF is now allowing some branch pruning to provide fuelwood, in an effort to minimize illicit cutting, and is trying to persuade villagers to convert to coal as the common fuel. • An estimate of illicit cutting in Celtikduzu is a relatively small 4 steres/household/annum, but this village has large areas of poplars. In more remote villages with smaller (or no) areas of poplars, the rate of illicit felling is probably around 10 steres/household/annum. The average over the MC is probably about 7 steres/household/annum. • Recent erosion control (brush terracing, planting) of 145 ha W of the road to Cevreli was inspected across the valley. Appears to be potentially very successful. The cost was TL 73 billion (about TL 500 m/ha). • The quality of the initial work and maintenance on erosion control and planting is likely to be higher than that done by contractors. The villagers are likely to have more interest in sustainable land improvement. One problem with villager involvement is the requirement that a professional forester has to “sign off” on work done on any area over 50 ha. The high costs of this (maybe TL 2 billion) eliminate any profit the villagers might have made, for no benefit whatsoever. It is a severe disincentive to the villagers.
The Main Problems: • Extremely steep and unstable slopes, especially in the gorge of the Coruh River. • Severe scarcity of fuelwood, and the consequent high level of illicit cutting. • Shallow soils and very dry climates, but occasional severe thunderstorms producing floods from immediate runoff from steep slopes. • Generally severe accelerated gully and soil erosion on the slopes of the numerous colluvial fans along tributaries of the Coruh River. • The cost to the villagers of involvement in erosion control work on areas greater than 50 ha.
Constraints: • Extremely steep and unstable slopes, especially in the gorge of the Coruh River. • Shallow soils and very dry climates, but occasional severe thunderstorms producing floods from immediate runoff from steep slopes. • Variable, but often severe, village opposition to involvement in erosion control work. • Erosion control by revegetation is very difficult under the harsh climates, and different methods are needed.
Potential for Rehabilitation: • Outside the MC, important work could be done by studying (i) the catchment from Yamacuslu to Korugoren, and (ii) the catchment above Yenikoy, as integrated whole-of-catchment erosion control projects. • Within the MC, the potential for rehabilitation is restricted by the extremely harsh conditions and by opposition from villagers, particularly in Celtikduzu. However, there is some potential for oak coppice treatments around Kilickaya, improved grazing control around all villages, and limited terracing and planting in a few places.
A - 62
Oltu Sub-Catchment, Oltu MC (OL-04)
VILLAGE COMMENTS Orcuk (on the The major problem (the worst in the whole MC) is the frequent flooding and re-activation of Dagin Dere) the very large colluvial fan along the stream through and below the village. At least 250 ha of arable land has been covered by coarse rocky debris. The total area around the village which should be rehabilitated is at least 2,000 ha, but much of this is irreversible erosion. The undifferentiated volcanic rock types and unconsolidated sandstones and mudstones immediately above the village appear to be particularly unstable and would be difficult to treat with terraces and planting. The stream bed contains a very wide variety of rock types. It might be possible to reduce the flash flooding from above by better grazing systems to reduce runoff. The village appears to be internally conflicting, but small, successful, demonstrations of erosion control are important to convince villagers. Ballica (on the The village is said to have lost about 200 ha of arable land under deposits of coarse rocky Kadaagac debris from the flooding stream. There is an obvious need for flood control. The village Dere) appears to have an active, aware and enthusiastic Muhtar. It would be a good village for model demonstration of integrated rehabilitation and development. Tutmac (on The large eroded area (500 ha?) to N and W of village could be rehabilitated by conventional the Sivri Dere) methods if it is a problem. Afforestation and erosion control area between Tutmac and Yarbasi is reasonably successful, but was probably not necessary. Conspicuous successful natural regeneration of Populus tremula. Needs grazing control of rangelands to SW. The springs upstream of the village are important for irrigation water and need some protection by revetments and streambank protection. Ozdere (on the There is mostly small gully erosion, but not very extensive. Successful use of korunga, Sekincukur Robinia and other species (Eleagnus angustifolia) for erosion control, also using brush Dere) terraces. Basakli (on the There is generally good pasture on rangelands high above village (2450 m) on MC boundary. Igdelinun AGM implemented a conventionally terraced and planted area, but this was of little real value Dere) as there was no particular problem on the site allowed by the villagers. Dekmonstrates the importance of discussing fencing and grazing control with specific rangeland users. Some extensive areas of erosion and bare rock along the steep stream from this site down to the village. Igdeli (not a Igdeli is not a forest village, although it should be. It is very small, with only 6 conservative selected and obstinate households. Very limited land area, and numerous continuing conflicts with the village) adjacent Orcuk. The villagers have refused to allow any erosion control activities, even though the Governor has applied pressure. There is a lot of degraded forest above the village, which is contributing to erosion and stream debris through and below Igdeli.
General comments from forestry agencies: • The disproportionate influence of a small group of stakeholders is well demonstrated in the case of Aksu village (just outside the MC), where only three households are said to possess a total of 1,500 goats. These have created serious erosion and still continue to degrade the area. It will be impossible to rehabilitate any part of this area unless these stakeholders change the composition and size of their herds, and their grazing patterns. • The effect of aspect on soil erosion is very well illustrated in the Aksu area. South-facing slopes are much harder to rehabilitate than the less harsh north-facing slopes. • There is considerable evidence of landslides and soil slumping on the higher slopes at the head of the MC, but most disturbed areas appear to rehabilitate themselves with grass naturally in time. • There is often great difficulty getting permission from villagers for erosion control activities on specific sites. • Utilise native species for erosion control, although obtaining seed or seedlings is difficult. Some of the areas around Ballica would be good sites. • The Muhtar of Orcuk may offer some 250 ha for an erosion control demonstration site.
The Main Problems:
A - 63
• Severe flooding and deposition of bedload sediments on stream banks and over arable lands, especially at Orcuk and Ballica. • Poor cooperation by villagers – need for considerable awareness training and much discussion. In particular considerable difficulty getting permission from villagers for proposed erosion control. • Need to identify livestock herders and discuss rangeland grazing control. • The rangeland pastures generally appear to be in reasonable condition, but are potentially subject to severe erosion if over-grazed.
Constraints: • Unstable rocks and soils. • Generally poor villager cooperation. • Need to protect the limited areas of arable and mer’a from flooding and deposition of coarse rocky debris. • Need to improve lowland productivity to relieve pressure on uplands.
Potential for Rehabilitation: • Most areas are probably reversible, except in and around Orcuk. Removal of coarse rocky debris, as frequently requested by villagers, would be extremely expensive. • There is a need for civil works to prevent stream bank erosion in selected areas.. • Potential for use of P. tremula in natural regeneration.
Tortum Sub-Catchment, Uzundere MC (TR-06)
VILLAGE COMMENTS Caglayan (on the Very steep bare rocky slopes to the S of the village, with lesser slopes to the N. In addition Cevizli Dere) to the bare rocky slopes, there has been severe erosion of any areas which might at one time have had moderately deep soils under forests or rangelands. Cevizli (on the Both sides of the river through the village have extremely steep bare rocky slopes. Cevizli Dere) Landslides are common after heavy rain. The riverbed and any tributaries are choked with coarse rocky debris, and several check dams have been completely filled. The soils are very shallow and unstable. The village has some walnut and poplar trees, but the slopes have only sparse Sari Cam woodland. There have been no effective erosion control projects. Kirazli (on the Both sides of the river through the village have extremely steep bare rocky slopes. Kilizli Dere) Landslides are common after heavy rain. The riverbed and any tributaries are choked with coarse rocky debris. The soils are very shallow and unstable. Some erosion control measures by AGM high on the left bank slopes have produced a sparse cover which has been moderately effective in erosion control. Sapaca (on the Both sides of the river through the village have extremely steep bare rocky slopes. Sapaca Dere) Landslides are common after heavy rain. The riverbed and any tributaries are choked with coarse rocky debris. The soils are very shallow and unstable. The river has been used for successful aquaculture, but the venture is always subject to damage by floods and deposition of sediments. Altincanak (on the The village is situated at the mouth of the Kilizli River downstream from Kirazli village, Kilizli Dere) and has steep bare rocky slopes to its N, S and E, and open flats to the W at the head of the Tortum Lake. The village uses some parts of the large area of alluvial sediments at head of Tortum Lake for agriculture. The River has large quantities of coarse rocky debris and is an unstable channel.
General comments from forestry agencies: • Implementation of any erosion control and afforestation activities is very difficult due to the extremely steep slopes, and shallow unstable soils.
A - 64
The Main Problems: • Extremely steep bare rocky slopes with active natural erosion and landslides. • Overgrazing of the limited areas of rangeland, and poor percentage cover of vegetation. • Overcutting of the limited forest resources. • Frequent severe flash floods, and considerable movement of coarse rocky debris in streambeds.
Constraints: • Extremely steep bare rocky slopes with active natural erosion and landslides. • Shallow unstable soils. • Frequent severe flash floods, and considerable movement of coarse rocky debris.
Potential for Rehabilitation: • Generally poor, due to the severe constraints. • Erosion control by any means, including afforestation, is very difficult. • In places where villages and infrastructures are under serious treat from high rates of natural erosion, such as landslides and streambank erosion by flooding, expensive civil engineering structures may be needed.
Upper Coruh Sub-Catchment, Bayburt MC (UC-03)
VILLAGE COMMENTS Maden (on the Area 3 km W of Maden applied for erosion control work on the S-facing long ridge Mitibey Dere) parallel to the main road. Cadastral surveys under the Pastures Law have been completed, but it is not clear who can do any erosion control work. The soils are shallow and potentially unstable, and terracing would not be a satisfactory method. Better to fence and control grazing, and perhaps plant individuals of species such as Berberis and Rosa. Gullies could be brush terraced. Just above Madan a few wide terraces have been constructed, presumably to protect the village from downslope flow. It is not known who constructed them. Masat (on the The N-facing slopes to the S, outside the MC, has regenerated well after removal of goats. Buyuk Dere) Strong aspect effects on natural regeneration are demonstrated on the ridge E of Masat parallel to the main road. The valley NE of Masat has considerable coppice oak and juniper regeneration, protecting and rehabilitating some moderately eroded slopes. Nomadic grazers with some 6,000 sheep on rangeland pastures which are only just reasonable. Yaylapinar (on the AGM afforestation area (400 ha) established in 2000 on W side of Latrans Dere) E of Kuru, Latrans Yaylarpinar, about 4 km N of the main road. The site is not particularly severely eroded, Dere) except for gullies which have mostly been plugged with drystone walls. The rangelands around the village are said to be in much better condition than 10-20 years ago due to recent much lower grazing intensities. Unlike Masat, the village does not allow nomadic grazing. Heybetepe (on the The ridge to the N of the village (on the MC boundary) is rocky but not eroding. The Ahsuniclar Dere) rangeland below the ridge is in reasonable condition, apart from some gullies, but is potentially erodible if cultivated. Considerable natural regeneration of P. tremula and juniper W of the village. Gezkoy (on the Some eroding gullies W of village. Some reasonably satisfactory pastures on S-facing Gez Dere) aspects W and E of the village.
General comments from forestry agencies: • No comments, as there is no AGM officer in Bayburt.
The Main Problems: • The main problems relate to the over-grazing of rangeland pastures, especially on S-facing slopes. Grazing control and possibly fencing are needed.
A - 65
• Generally shallow soils. • The presence of large flocks of sheep owned by nomads for four months in summer, whose grazing intensities cannot be controlled by the village once the agreements have been made.
Constraints: • A predominance of South-facing slopes and shallow soils. • The large flocks of sheep owned by nomads.
Potential for Rehabilitation: • Mostly very good, provided villagers are interested and able to be active. • The nomadic grazing must be better controlled. • The out-migration appears to have had positive effects on the intensity of erosion, and the apparent success of natural regeneration in many places. • The potential for natural regeneration of P. tremula and other species is excellent.
Upper Coruh Sub-Catcment, Ispir MC (UC-14)
VILLAGE COMMENTS Koprukoy About 200 ha being terraced and planted conventionally by a village group under a direct contract of approximately TL 130 billion. The only AGM work in this MC was done 15 years ago on an area to the W and N of the village, but tree growth is not very successful. Village has suffered badly from annual flooding, but flooding seems less severe now. S of the village on the left bank of the Koprudere, opposite Mezua mahalle there are steep slopes with frequent landslides. A little N and W of the village the same problem is evident. There is a need for erosion control SE of the village. Village is very cohesive and cooperative. Potential for natural regeneration by P. tremula, among other species. Gockoy Very rocky terrain on approach to village, with very high rates of natural erosion. Reputedly, the village has an excellent conservation ethic, forbids goats and encourages profuse natural regeneration of P. tremula and other species. There is a very large ancient landslide behind the village, which is still potentially unstable. Numanpasa The village has extensive gently rolling rangelands with excellent pastures. There is very little sheet or gully erosion. Beekeeping based on the pasture resource is common. Durukoy Erosion of the (mostly) Chestnut Soils is not currently very severe overall, except for a few limited areas, mostly on limestone. However, intensive cultivation will expose these soils to serious erosion. Kockoy The area to the SE, high on the ridge, has large areas of severe mass movements. There are other scattered areas of sheet and gully erosion.
General comments from forestry agencies: • Encountered an example of extreme villager opposition to any erosion control work at Kirik village, outside the MC. Closely tied to village politics, and the influence of non-residents. Large areas of potentially-erodible rangeland – just on the edge of severe sheet and gully erosion if further over-grazed. Under the Pastures Law this type of rangeland will probably come under the responsibility of MARA. A delegation of villagers later came to AGM to apologise for the conduct of this person, and expressed awareness of soil erosion and their willingness to cooperate. • The factors which distinguish villagers from each other in terms of their “conservation ethic” appear to include: (i) experiences of erosion, severe flooding and catastrophic mass earth movements; (ii) a strong and committed Muhtar; (iii) the level of education and awareness of the outside world; (iv) the presence of disruptive elements in the village (often those who live in other towns and only visit briefly) who for political reasons try to undermine the authority of the Muhtar; and (v) a high proportion of conservative older people in the village who are not receptive to new ideas and cannot physically implement new activities.
A - 66
The Main Problems: • The worst areas of soil erosion are below, around and above Koprukoy. Landslides are also common. This village is also subject to serious flooding. • The Numanpasa area demonstrates the value of effective pasture management and low grazing intensities. • There is ample evidence almost everywhere of severe mass movements in the past and potentially in the future.
Constraints: • Extremely steep land around most villages, except the rolling rangelands at Numanpasa. • Very little can be done to avoid or mitigate mass movements, except to avoid building under potentially unstable zones. • Generally erodible soils if badly managed.
Potential for Rehabilitation: • Quite promising, except on steep slopes. • Effective grazing control can certainly mitigate erosion on moderate and even steep slopes.
A.4 PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF EFFECTIVE SOIL CONSERVATION
A.4.1 Causes and Impacts of Natural and Accelerated Soil Erosion
Natural soil erosion occurs continuously and at all places in all countries. It is in fact the main process whereby the Continental landscapes are worn down over geological time and the products eventually moved by rivers to the sea. In time they may be reconstituted into new sedimentary rocks and again uplifted to form new landscapes. The rates of geological, or natural, erosion vary widely from place to place and time to time, depending on rock types and the orientation of their strata, weathering rates, climates, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes, vegetation cover, the transporting power of the streams and rivers and many other factors. Mass movements (such as the old landslide which dammed the Tortum River to form Tortum Lake) are also a feature of natural erosion and can rarely be prevented by any human intervention, although their impacts can sometimes be mitigated by engineering structures.
However, accelerated soil erosion is generally the result of human interventions. Many experimental measurements in many countries have confirmed that accelerated soil erosion is negligible when the landscape has a dense cover of grass or closed forest, when a high proportion of the rainfall infiltrates into the soil and when runoff moves slowly in shallow layers over the surface. Rates of soil loss might range from almost zero to 1-3 tonnes per hectare per annum (t/ha/an.).
When pastures are grazed, especially if over-grazed in relation to the type of pasture and the prevailing climate, rates of soil erosion might double or triple to as much as 10 t/ha/an. When soils are cultivated, even using the best practices of cultivation tillage, even larger rates of soil loss usually occur. Severe over-grazing, poor cultivation practices on arable land, poor
A - 67
harvesting practices in forests and other forms of poor soil management will produce increasingly greater losses of topsoil by sheet erosion. If the amounts and proportions of runoff increase because a smaller proportion of the rainfall is absorbed (infiltrated) into the topsoil, it generally concentrates into small channels. Its velocity then increases and its erosive power increases with the cube of the velocity. Small shallow rills first appear on the surface, and these eventually combine and deepen into gullies which remove both topsoils and subsoils.
Table A.3.1 describes many of these factors, influences, consequences and problems, and some of the solutions which may be employed to alleviate or rehabilitate the problems.
The first, essential, step in the processes of sheet, rill, gully or wind erosion is detachment of soil particles (single grains, or soil aggregates) from the surrounding soil particles. The forces which bind one soil particle to its neighbours must be broken. There will be no, or very little, soil erosion unless and until detachment first occurs. Detachment occurs when the particle is exposed to high velocity winds, the direct impacts of raindrops or to the force of water moving rapidly over the surface, with a level of energy which exceeds the forces binding the soil particle to the adjacent particles. Once detached, the particle exposes other particles to detachment, and may itself assist in detaching other particles. The processes of water erosion accelerate as more particles detach and start to move downslope. The process is more destructive if the slopes are steep, the water velocities are high, the binding power of plant roots is low and the soils less cohesive.
Factors which limit detachment (and therefore tend to limit rates of soil erosion) include: a well developed complete plant cover of foliage; profuse and strong plant roots; high soil organic matter contents; well developed medium granular and blocky soil structures; non- compacted topsoils; medium soil textures such as silty clay loams; and high infiltration rates. It is worth noting that when rainfall intensity greatly exceeds topsoil infiltration rates for several hours, and when soils become saturated after considerable rain, runoff increases greatly and even the most erosion-resistant soils become more prone to sheet and gully erosion.
High rates of sheet erosion are serious, even on very deep fertile soils, because they will, in time, lead to loss of topsoil organic matter, loss of topsoil nutrients, breakdown of soil structures and decreasing soil depths. The output of suspended sediments from the catchment increases. Compacted infertile stony subsoils will be closer to the surface. The area of land occupied by gullies impedes cultivation, removes land from productive uses and produces a great deal of sediment. If the soil is initially shallow, infertile, has poorly developed structures and infertile subsoils, the impacts of accelerated soil erosion will be very serious and will occur very quickly. The productivity of the vegetation, whether crops, pastures or trees, will rapidly decline. Livestock and humans dependent on the vegetation will suffer commensurately.
A - 68
It is not possible to calculate tolerable soil loss rates for the soils of the Coruh River catchment with the limited information available at this time. Methods for such calculations have been devised: for example, as described in “A Case Study on Kenya”, Agro-Ecological Land Resources Assessment for Agricultural Development Planning, Technical Annex 2, Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, FAO World Soil Resources Reports 71/2, 1992.
Lastly, road construction and maintenance is likely to produce large amounts of suspended sediments and coarse rocky debris when high–intensity rains fall on bare road surfaces and concentrate into swift torrents in road gutters, and thence into rapid streams downslope of the road. Many observations in Turkey and elsewhere in the world have demonstrated that poorly-constructed roads with poor drainage often contribute very high proportions of the total discharge of suspended sediment from the catchment, even though the roads themselves occupy a very small area and proportion of the catchment. These matters have been described in Table 3.1 above.
A.4.2 Soil Conservation Strategies: Control of Water Movement and Control of Plant Cover
Therefore, two important Strategies for Soil Conservation are immediately apparent:
1. Maintain the highest feasible percentage foliage cover of grasses or closed forest over each area of soil, especially on steep slopes. 2. To the greatest feasible extent, maintain wide, shallow and slow surface water flows instead of narrow, deep and fast flows.
If these strategies are followed to the greatest feasible extent, rates of soil erosion will be minimized for the prevailing site conditions.
Strategy 1 is highly dependent upon the methods used for land management. Excessive forest harvesting for commercial timbers, excessive harvesting of oak forests for fuelwood, allowing cultivated arable land to lie exposed for long periods and over-grazing of pastures are some of the activities which will exacerbate soil erosion. These activities can all be modified by human interventions.
Strategy 2 is firstly dependent on Strategy 1, in that a dense vegetation cover will tend to maintain shallow surface water flows at relatively low velocities, even on quite steep slopes. This desirable situation can also be assisted by interrupting downslope surface water flows with contour terraces spaced at appropriate intervals across the slope, provided that they do not channel water along the terrace to their ends where it will become concentrated and move at high velocity. Ripping along terraces may improve the rates of infiltration of water moving downslope to the terrace. A dense cover of inter-terrace vegetation (such as pastures or
A - 69
forage crops) will assist in slowing surface water flows, as will trees planted along the terraces. These activities can all be assisted by human intervention.
If runoff water does become concentrated into narrow, deep, fast flows it will inevitably form torrents which will excavate gullies. The steeper the slope the worse the situation. The only way to avoid (or minimize) gully formation is to avoid concentrating overland flow into narrow and deep flows at high velocity. Deep and steep gullies will deliver large quantities of suspended sediments to watercourses, and large amounts of coarse debris (gravels, stones and boulders) to colluvial fans and thence into the rivers as bedloads. Colluvial fans and mudslides may block roads after torrential rain, which imposes severe costs on local governments. Once a gully has formed it can only be rehabilitated by (i) physically re- shaping and re-contouring the land by hand or machine; and/or (ii) by plugging the gully with small dams and/or (iii) by planting trees or shrubs in the gully to slow the flow of water. These methods will only be sustainable if strong efforts are made to minimize and control the amounts and velocities of runoff before they enter the gully.
Lastly, sediments moved from uplands, along small and large streams, may be deposited (even if temporarily) as alluvial terraces along major rivers. Alluvial terraces are usually prized for their fertility and suitability for intensive agriculture and horticulture, even if there is some risk of flooding. Alluvial terraces are highly prone to bank erosion, especially during floods, although bank erosion might be prevented by gabions or impervious walls, or minimised by planting riparian vegetation such as poplars and willows.
Implementation of both Strategies for Soil Conservation will be influenced at any given site by the physical, socio-economic and legal/administrative constraints described in Section 3.3.
A.4.3 Participation in Soil Conservation by Villagers
It is clear from the above discussion that human interventions can do a great deal to prevent and/or mitigate and/or rehabilitate soil erosion. The State agencies which have responsibility for controlling and rehabilitating soil erosion (such as AGM) will be able to undertake limited amounts of these interventions, as they have done in various parts of the Coruh River catchment. Other agencies, such as TEMA, can likewise have some impact. However, there is never enough money to accomplish all the necessary tasks, and the prime responsibility for accomplishing successful, sustainable, soil conservation must rest with the villagers whose livelihoods largely depend upon maintaining healthy and productive forests and rangelands. They will therefore remain the major “land managers” and “soil conservationists” in the catchment for a long time into the future.
The villagers can become effective land managers and agents for effective soil conservation in many ways, including:
A - 70
• Protecting rangelands by adopting appropriate grazing strategies for different types of herds at different times and at different intensities of grazing. The grazing strategies will differ from place to place and time to time, and they must increasingly be soundly based in better scientific understanding of the different types of rangelands. The new Pastures Law may help in this respect, although its efficacy is yet to be proved. Changing the composition of the herds, especially by reducing the numbers of extremely destructive goats and increasing the proportion of cattle fed near the village on improved pastures and forage crops, will help to reduce grazing intensities. As discussed above, these changes may require some external assistance to improve forage production and income- generating opportunities in and around the village. • In addition to improving rangelands by changing grazing practices, villagers can assist in soil conservation by actively participating in measures which improve certain types of rangelands, such as seeding and fertilizing. Improved rangeland pastures must then be better managed, principally by improving grazing practices, so that they are not preferentially grazed and then degraded into a condition worse than before improvement. • Any measures which help to reduce the dependence of villagers on the adjacent forest resources should be helpful in minimizing degradation of these resources and in rehabilitating them. • If transhumant (nomadic) grazing is a problem, villagers must recognize the problem and attempt to minimize it. This will not be easy as, firstly, these temporary visitors may provide some income to the village from rental of grazing rights and, secondly, they may not respect the rights and decisions of the resident villagers. • In addition, it is not always possible for the village authorities to gain consensus among the villagers for better grazing practices, nor to enforce them upon some of the villagers. External authorities can do little to influence these matters – they are the responsibility of the villagers themselves. • If the villagers persist in destructive behaviour which exacerbates soil erosion, despite all the evidence of degrading environments around the village which will ultimately destroy much of their livelihoods, then the authorities have little choice but to attempt to enforce better soil conservation strategies. This could be contentious and divisive, and may not be very successful. However, coercive measures will be better accepted if the authorities have developed at least some level of trust and goodwill with the villagers.
The primary long-term aim of any project undertaken in the Coruh River catchment is the rehabilitation and more effective management of the natural resources in and near the village - soils, rangelands, arable lands and forests. In the past, this was attempted by Government agencies alone, but at high cost and with limited effectiveness. It was rarely sustainable without continuing large inputs from the Government, mainly because it was done without the understanding and willing participation of the villages who depend upon and use the forests, rangelands and arable lands.
A - 71
As discussed in the “Community Forestry Operations Manual” which was prepared for the project named “Development of Appropriate Methods for Community Forestry in Turkey” (FAO-Government of Switzerland-Government of Turkey project GCP/TUR/045/SWI), the only effective way in which these natural resources can be sustainably and permanently improved is by engaging the interest and involvement of the villagers in "Co-Management Partnerships" for land management.
They will only be interested in long-term improved landscape management if they believe that any short-term sacrifices and changes to their current land management practices will be ultimately justified in terms of better lives for themselves and their children.
Therefore, if the villagers understand that continuation of their present land management practices will ultimately destroy their environments and their chances of achieving satisfactory lifestyles, they will be more interested in the linkages between improved animal husbandry, arable land and rangeland management, reduced fuelwood use and establishment of fruit, nut and timber trees, and the long-term improvement of the forests and rangelands.
However, improvement of the economic and social conditions of the villagers by income- generating and communal activities will not in itself automatically lead to improved environmental conditions around the villages. It is only when clear connections are made by the villagers between their economic and social conditions and the environmental conditions around them they they will realise they have a stake in improving their natural resources.
The key lies in demonstrating, with the villagers, the linkages between improved household activities and improved management of the communal natural resources. The key also lies in using these linkages as incentives to the villagers. Villagers will understand that they will gain some benefits from various household or community activities (some of which will be income-producing) provided they are prepared to be involved in Co-Management activities which will ultimately improve their natural resources.
Some important linkages are shown in Table 4.1. Most of these activities, and their linkages with the state of the natural resources, serve several purposes. For example, improved arable and rangeland soils will have beneficial effects through reduced soil erosion, and improved rangeland and agricultural productivity, producing cash from sales of surplus agricultural products. In turn, spare cash can be invested in improved livestock and facilities, but this improvement will be wasted if the management of the soils and rangelands is neglected.
All these activities need effective training and extension services from external agencies if villagers are to understand the reasons for the cycle of environmental degradation which has brought them to their present conditions, and if they are to be helped to break this cycle. The cycle of environmental degradation can be reversed by improved co-management of the natural resources, particularly the rangeland and arable soils.
A - 72
Table A.4.1: Linkages between various activities and the state of natural resources
ACTIVITY LINKAGE WITH NATURAL RESOURCES Forest improvement Linked with and depend upon provision of funds from Ministry, and activities availability of labour from village. They improve natural resource productivity, forest soils, water supplies and soil erosion status. They improve timber supplies for village, and may improve social and economic opportunities for on-site and downstream processing.
Energy forest Linked with and depend upon provision of funds from Ministry, and active management activities involvement of villagers. They improve fuelwood supplies, fodder supplies and water supplies, decrease pressures on other forest resources and minimise soil erosion and flooding.
Erosion control Linked with and depend upon provision of funds from Ministry and activities involvement of villagers. Also depend strongly upon improvement of rangeland pastures and better grazing management. They improve quality and reliability of village water supplies, and decrease flooding.
Beekeeping Linked with and depend upon bee fodder from flowers on improved fodder species in managed rangelands, fruit trees and some forest trees.
Provision of clean Linked with and depend upon restoring the forest cover, repair of eroded soils drinking water, and and reduction of rates of soil erosion. Require improved rangeland pastures, minor irrigation better grazing management, and establishment of tree species.
Income-generating Linked with and depend upon improved soil fertility, better crop seeds, better businesses, improved arable land management, minor irrigation, better animal husbandry, better cropping, tourism, food fodder supplies, better grazing management, more work available in forests, preservation and income from private forests.
Improvement of energy Linked with and depend upon improved forest conditions and forest supplies (fuelwood, management, and upon establishment of more trees around the village. Also gas, coal, solar, linked with reduction of fuelwood demand by use of other sources of energy, biogas), better stoves, use of better stoves, communal laundries and house insulation. Strongly improved house affected by demographic changes in the village. insulation Nutrition and health, Linked with and depend upon more reliable and improved drinking water and vegetable seeds, irrigation water, better food from animals (meat, milk, cheese, yoghurt), better greenhouse food from plants (fruits, nuts, vegetables). May produce a cash surplus, construction, enabling investment in agriculture, animal husbandry and improved soil mushroom cultivation, fertility. better stoves and house insulation, food preservation, fisheries
Animal husbandry, Linked with and depend upon improved fodder supplies on rangelands, and improvement of improved grazing management. Require cash investments in improved breeds, stall feeding, livestock and facilities, veterinary care, winter fodder production from arable improved animal lands and hay production from rangelands. housing
A - 73
A.4.4 Erosion Control Measures
As stated above, the most successful prevention, mitigation and rehabilitation of soil erosion, and the most successful measures for sustainable soil conservation, will only be achieved if the cooperation and participation of the villagers is actively encouraged.
In addition, the State agencies have available some technical methods for: • management and rehabilitation of existing forests; • afforestation; • rangeland management, especially if the new Pastures Law can be made effective; and • rehabilitation of landscapes using a wide range of technical measures which can greatly assist in rehabilitating eroded landscapes and preventing further soil erosion. These are briefly described in Chapter 5 of this Working Paper.
A.4.5 Objective Measurements of the Benefits of Erosion Control Measures
Over many years a very large amount of money, and a lot of time and effort, has been expended by State agencies in controlling soil erosion in many parts of Turkey. It is very unfortunate that until recently virtually no attempts have been made to obtain objective evidence which evaluates whether the money, time and effort have been effectively used to reduce discharges of suspended sediments from the treated catchments.
During this Master Plan Study senior officers in AGM have been formally asked:
1. Is there any reliable objective evidence that the large amounts of money and effort spent on erosion control in Anatolia over many years have produced significant reductions in suspended sediments leaving the micro-catchments? 2. Are there any plans to initiate well-planned scientific research studies in a selection of micro-catchments of the baseline and post-treatment effects of erosion control on suspended sediments leaving the micro-catchments?
The answer to the first question is basically “No”. The issue was identified during the planning for the Eastern Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project, and some small studies were started. These included:
• Work by GDRS on periodic measurements and assessments of the changes in vegetation cover and types of vegetation in several quadrats at three sites within one micro- catchment. Some results have been collected, but they have not been analysed to date. • Work by KHGM, with support from the Electrical Affairs Studies Office, to measure discharges of suspended sediments at five sites. Again, some data has been accumulated but not yet analysed. In some cases there has been no runoff, and therefore no sediments have been discharged.
A - 74
Any studies of this type must include the following considerations:
• the studies must be designed in a scientifically valid manner; • they must be commenced at least one year before erosion control activities are undertaken, to establish a valid baseline against which the effects of erosion control activities can be measured and assessed; • they must include regular (six-monthly) periodic measurements of characteristics of the mini-catchment for many years, including scientific assessments of vegetation survival and cover, stream discharge and output of suspended sediments; and • the data obtained in the baseline studies and periodic measurements must be regularly (yearly) monitored, evaluated and reported so that methods of erosion control for future use in other mini-catchments can be progressively modified to take account of the lessons learned.
Studies of this type are strongly recommended for the Coruh River catchment, and it is not too late to start them immediately. If baseline data is not collected prior to erosion control activities and if reliable periodic measurements of discharges of suspended sediments are not made for many years thereafter, it is not possible to make objective assessments of the effectiveness of the activities. The Study Team was frequently assured that subjective assessments confirmed their effectiveness, but this is not really sufficient to justify further political and administrative decisions to continue supporting the work with large injections of State funds.
A.5 LAND MANAGEMENT AND SOIL CONSERVATION
A.5.1 A Decision-Making Methodology for Rehabilitating Soil Erosion in the Coruh River Catchment
AGM staff are often required to make a decision whether or not to attempt to rehabilitate an eroded area. The area may be large (hundreds of hectares) or small (1-10 hectares). The decision is normally made by a senior experienced forester, who uses a “mental expert system” to consider, accept or reject numerous alternative courses of action. Eventually he comes to an informed decision about the rational use of scarce resources to accomplish an achievable goal.
However, junior staff are less experienced, and a need a formal, logical, standardized procedures to guide them in making a long series of decisions when considering a particular eroded area.
Table 5.1 presents a formal decision-making methodology – an expert system on paper – which will assist junior staff in their work. It will also be useful in training. While Decision-
A - 75
Making Methodology is designed for making decisions for rehabilitation of soil erosion in the Coruh River catchment, the detailed criteria could easily be adapted for use elsewhere in Turkey.
It is strongly recommended that this Decision-Making Methodology should be adopted for use in the Coruh River catchment, and elsewhere.
A - 76
Table A.5.1 A Decision-Making Methodology for Rehabilitating Soil Erosion in the Coruh River Catchment
Table 1: PRIMARY INDICATORS FOR DECIDING WHETHER TO IMPLEMENT SOIL CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES:
INDICATOR METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION
The severity and location Qualitative and subjective assessment (from discussions with stakeholders and visual assessment) of three classes of Minor, of the erosion problem Moderate and Severe erosion which present actual or potential direct threats to human lives, significant infrastructure or important agricultural areas.
Active or non-active Active soil erosion is demonstrated by visible evidence of: bare un-vegetated soils; fresh unconsolidated surface fine visible erosion sediments and coarser rock debris (sheet erosion); river bed and bank deposits and colluvial fans of gravels, stones and boulders; new rill erosion; active gully erosion; active gully head retreat and surface flood debris.
Reversibility If all or most of the Biophysical Indicators are assessed as generally favourable for rehabilitation, the erosion problem is probably reversible. Classes are Reversible, Probably Reversible and Irreversible.
A - 77 Acceptability by village After extensive consultation with the villagers as a group and as individual stakeholders (women, agriculturists, bee-keepers, stakeholders livestock herders and other identifiable groups) the classes are Willing, Reluctant and Opposed. If Willing, there should be written evidence that: • the proposed interventions are acceptable to the village as a whole and/or to individual groups of stakeholders; • the village as a whole and/or any individual group is willing to spend its own time and/or money in preventing or rehabilitating soil erosion; and • the status of land ownership permits the proposed activities.
Table 2: BIOPHYSICAL INDICATORS FOR SELECTING PARTICULAR TYPES OF SOIL CONSERVATION INTERVENTIONS:
INDICATOR METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION
Slope Percent slope in classes of Gentle [0-12%], Moderate [12-30%], Steep [30-45%], Very Steep [>45%], measured by clinometer
Aspect (as an indicator of the site Predominance of North-facing Slopes or South-facing Slopes, assessed by compass climate) Altitude (as an indicator of the site Three classes of Low [0-1,200m]. Medium [1,200-2,400m] and High [>2,400m], assessed by altimeter or on topographic maps. climate) An altitude of 2,400m is generally regarded as the treeline.
Percentage cover of grasses and Three classes of cover percentage as Sparse [<20%], Medium [20-60%] and Good [>60%], measured by point transects herbs
Percentage cover of shrubs and trees Three classes of cover percentage as Sparse [<20%], Medium [20-60%] and Good [>60%]. In Forest Management Plans, the classes are Normal High Forest (NK), Degraded High Forest (BK), Normal Coppice Forest (Bt), Degraded Coppice Forest (BBt), Forest Areas Without Trees (OT). Agricultural Areas (Z) and Mer’a (M). OT areas generally have severe soil erosion and should be taken under the forest regime and rehabilitated.
A - 78 Geological stability and erodibility Two generalized classes of Highly Unstable rock types (granites, undifferentiated volcanic rocks, serpentines, gypsiferous mudstones, unconsolidated sandstones and mudstones, unconsolidated colluvia and alluvia) and Moderately Stable rock types (basalts, non-shattered sandstones, consolidated colluvia and alluvia)
Soil stability and erodibility Two generalized classes of Highly Erodible (Brown Forest Soils, Brown Soils, Chestnut Soils, Non-Calcic Brown Forest and Brown Soils, Red-Yellow Podzolic Soils) and Moderately Stable (Basaltic Soils, stable Alluvial Soils, stable Colluvial Soils, High Mountain Pasture Soils)
Soil textures down the profile Three generalised classes of Fine-textured, Gravelly and Stony, derived from a general visual assessment of the proportions of fine soil, gravels, stones and boulders down the soil profile
Soil depth Three generalized classes of Shallow [0-20 cm], Medium [20-80 cm] and Deep [>80 cm], derived from a general visual assessment of a range of soil profiles
Delivery downslope and Qualitative and subjective visual assessment of evidence of turbid streams, and extensive bedload deposits as Minor, downstream of suspended sediments Moderate and Severe as a visually-assessed proportion of area under village use and bedloads
ASSESSMENT OF AN ERODING AREA
Site: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………
Date: …………………………….
Assessor: ……………………………………………………
PRIMARY INDICATORS DECISION
STEP 1: The severity and location Minor Moderate Severe If Minor, cease assessment. of the erosion problem If Moderate or Severe, continue assessment.
STEP 2: Active or Non-Active visible Non- Active If the problem is of Moderate importance and erosion is Non-Active, cease erosion Active assessment. If Moderate and Active, continue assessment. If Severe and Non-Active, continue assessment.
A - 79 If Severe and Active, continue assessment.
STEP 3: Reversibility Irreversible Probably Reversible If Reversible, continue assessment. Reversible If Probably Reversible, continue assessment. If Irreversible, cease assessment.
STEP 4: Acceptability by village Opposed Reluctant Willing If the assessment under Steps 1, 2 and 3 has shown that erosion control must be stakeholders undertaken, but if villagers are Opposed, cease assessment until villagers are persuaded to be Willing or Reluctant. Check that the status of land ownership permits the proposed activities.
If these FOUR STEPS, based on the Primary Indicators, show that actions for the prevention and/or rehabilitation of soil erosion should be undertaken, the site should then be assessed using the Biophysical Indicators.
FEASIBLE TECHNICAL ACTIONS BIOPHYSICAL INDICATORS DECISION
Slope Gentle Moderate Steep If Very Steep, continue assessment only if If Very Steep, encourage natural regeneration by (0-12%) (12-30%) (30-45%) other Biophysical Indicators are generally fencing and grazing control. If other slope classes, and Very favourable. encourage natural regeneration, and implement Steep terracing and planting, and gully plugging. (>45%) Aspect North- South- If South-facing Slopes, continue If South-facing Slopes, encourage natural regeneration facing facing assessment only if other Biophysical by fencing and grazing control. If North-facing slopes slopes Indicators are generally favourable. Slopes, implement terracing and planting, gully plugging, and grazing control and natural regeneration.
Altitude Low Medium High If High Altitude, do not undertake If High Altitude, implement grazing control and gully (0-1000m) (1000- (>2400m) afforestation. plugging. If Low or Medium Altitude, implement all 2400m) feasible technical actions.
A - 80 Percentage cover of Good Medium Sparse If Sparse or Medium, implement all In all cases, implement grazing control and pasture grasses and herbs (>60%) (20-60%) (<20%) feasible technical actions to increase rehabilitation, and encourage natural regeneration. vegetative cover. If Good, maintain vegetative cover.
Percentage cover of Good Medium Sparse If Sparse or Medium, implement all If Sparse implement grazing control, natural shrubs and trees (>60%) (20-60%) (<20%) feasible technical actions to increase regeneration and pasture improvement. If Medium or vegetative cover. If Good, maintain Good, implement recognised silvicultural actions vegetative cover by protection and (including coppice management) to create and silvicultural methods. maintain the highest possible cover percentage.
Geological stability and Moderately Highly If Highly Unstable, carefully consider Moderately Stable sites will be easier to rehabilitate erodibility stable unstable feasibility of technical actions. by grazing control, pasture rehabilitation, terracing and tree planting, and gully plugging.
Soil stability and Moderately Highly If Highly Erodible, carefully consider Moderately Stable sites will be easier to rehabilitate erodibility stable erodible feasibility of technical actions. by grazing control, pasture rehabilitation, terracing and tree planting, and gully plugging.
Soil textures down the Fine- Gravelly Stony If Stony, carefully consider feasibility of Fine textured and Gravelly soils will be easier to profile textured technical actions. rehabilitate by the usual technical measures. If Stony, encourage natural regeneration, and possibly localized soil improvement and tree planting.
Soil depth Deep Medium Shallow If Shallow, carefully consider feasibility of Medium and Deep soils will be easier to rehabilitate (>80cm) (20-80cm) (0-20cm) technical actions. by the usual technical measures. If Shallow, encourage natural regeneration. Contribution to Turbid Minor and Severe If streams are Turbid, and erosion is Minor If Minor or Moderate, use gully plugging and delivery of sediments streams Moderate or Moderate, implement all feasible encourage natural regeneration. If Severe, expensive and bedloads technical actions. If Severe, only expensive mechanical actions (bulldozing bedloads, gabions) will mechanical actions are feasible. be required. Use gully plugging and gully revegetation. A - 81
A.5.2 Structures and Costs for Control and Rehabilitation of Soil Erosion
Directions and detailed specifications for many different types of erosion control structures have been admirably described in the book published by AGM in 1999 entitled “Erozyon Kontrolu Uygulamalarinda Dikkate Alinacak Hususlar” (literally: “Issues to be Considered for Implementing Erosion Control Projects”). The book first describes the types of soil erosion which might be found in Turkey (water, surface, gully, wind, avalanche and glacier erosion, and water flow down slopes). Chapter 3 then describes different types of erosion control structures and methods of afforestation. Some of these are listed below. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss afforestation and maintenance of forest plantings. Chapter 6 discusses fencing.
The Study Team inspected several different types of erosion control structures in the Study Area, including:
• Contour (“gradoni”) terraces prepared by machines and/or by hand, including terraces with brush laid on the downslope side. See pages 40 to 96 of the AGM book. • Control of discharge of water. See pages 97 to 105. • Afforestation on terraces. See pages 106 to 121 and pages 166 to 175. • Small check dams for gully plugging, made of stones or bags of soil. See pages 106 to 154. • One large check dam built by DSI on a very active large gully. • Gabions for control of riverbank erosion, and other “edge fortifications”. See pages 155 to 165. • Poplars and willows for control of riverbank erosion. • Some attempts to control mass movements (landslides). See pages 286 to 213. • Roadside and road drainage treatments, especially in the vicinity of the new roads near the dams under construction on the Coruh River near Artvin, Borcka and Muratli.
The costs of most of these physical interventions are rather high, and they can only be applied over relatively small areas given the financial constraints. The Study Team formally asked senior officers of AGM to comment on the following questions:
1. Would it might be possible to reduce the per-hectare costs of erosion control very significantly (thereby allowing many more hectares to be treated) by undertaking much more rangeland rehabilitation above eroded areas, and forage production for cut-and- carry on eroded areas, and by doing much less physical terracing and gully plugging? 2. Would these proposals be at least as effective, or perhaps even more effective, than current procedures in reducing suspended sediments leaving the micro-catchments? 3. Would these proposals be more cost-effective than current procedures? 4. Are these proposals realistic and acceptable to both farmers and AGM?
A - 82
The answers are, generally, affirmative to all the questions. AGM is very much aware that costs are high and that they seriously constrain the amounts of erosion control activities which they can undertake each year. They are actively searching for lower-cost alternatives, some of which were tested during the Eastern Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project. However, it must be accepted that: (i) much of the soil erosion in Turkey is severe in both its extent and nature; (ii) that rehabilitation requires expensive techniques; and (iii) that there are few possibilities for considerable cost reductions.
Therefore, any low-cost methods of preventing soil erosion before it becomes serious, rather than attempting to control it after it becomes evident, should be encouraged. Foremost among these strategies, is of course, rational management of rangelands above erosion-prone slopes, to maintain a satisfactory vegetative cover and to control the downslope movement of water. Such methods will not work in all cases, but they may (depending on sites and circumstances) go a considerable way towards lower-cost, effective, soil conservation.
The Staff Appraisal Report for the Eastern Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project included seven different types of soil conservation interventions. The costs at that time were estimated as shown in Table 5.2. The cost advantage of rangeland rehabilitation is readily apparent.
The current costs for some of the types of activities listed in Table 5.2 were provided by the AGM office in Erzurum and from other sources within MEF, and have been revised by Mr Muzaffer Dogru. They are presented in Table 5.3.
As discussed in Section 4.5 and elsewhere in this Working Paper, it is important to monitor and evaluate the benefits of these soil conservation and erosion control activities. In relation to terracing and planting, the success of revegetation must be regularly monitored by undertaking (at the least) percentage survival counts, measures of percentage vegetation cover and perhaps height and diameter growth of trees. Discharge of suspended sediments should be measured by reliable scientific techniques, using regular and intermittent stream sampling. It is worth noting that much of the sediment discharge within any year may occur only during a few erosion events brought on by sudden storms. For the rest of the year there may be no stream discharge, and therefore no sediment discharge. This means that sampling intervals must be flexible and adjusted to the occurrence of storm events if valid measurements are to be achieved.
A - 83
Table A.5.2 Estimated base costs of soil conservation interventions, EAWRP, 1993.
Type of Intervention Estimated Base Cost (US$ per ha) Soil Conservation Afforestation: mechanical terracing, planting acorns on prepared 884 gradoni terraces between the bulldozed terraces, broadcast seeding of the entire area with a mixture of forage seed, grass seed and fertilisers. Gullies would be re-vegetated, and small check dams constructed. Conifer Plantations: establishment of conifer plantations by planting on ripped or 896 manually prepared slopes. Oak Coppice Rehabilitation: cutting of degraded oak stands to encourage coppicing, and 556 acorn sowing in open areas. Rangeland Rehabilitation: by broadcast seeding with a mixture of forage seed, grass seed 271 and fertilizers, and gully rehabilitation with multi-purpose tree planting (Robinia, willows, poplars, fruit and nut trees), and check dams where needed. Gully Rehabilitation: check dams and gully planting with trees and shrubs. 396 Fuelwood Coppice Plantations: oak planting and acorn seeding on mechanically ripped 749 and manually prepared sites. Riverbank Protection: along unstable banks between low and high flood levels by 205 planting poplars and willows. Source: EAWRP Staff Appraisal Report, pages 66 and 74.
Table A.5.3 Costs of some erosion control activities.
Program or Activity Unit Cost per Unit (US$) Soil Conservation Affoestation (by AGM) ha 660 • Preparation of terraces by hand labour ha 309 • Planting of seedlings ha 126 • Seedling cost (1,500 seedlings on average) ha 60 • Gully plugging ha 20 • Fencing ha 15 • Preparation of access roads ha 5 (Sub-total for establishment operations = US$ 535/ha) • Replacement planting ha 30 • First Year tending (weeding, hoeing, terrace repair) ha 35 • Second Year tending (weeding, hoeing, terrace repair) ha 30 • Third Year tending (weeding, hoeing, terrace repair) ha 30 (Sub-total for tending and maintenance = US$ 125/ha) ha • Protection of afforestation sites by Forest Guards ha/year 10 • Protection of afforestation sites by village community ha/year 4 Overheads (rough estimates for supervision, administration, planning etc.) ha 66 Rehabilitation and revegetation by conservation on high slopes sites ha 65 (AGM) • Seed sowing ha 20 • Gully plugging ha 20 • Fencing ha 15 • Other expenditures ha 10 • Protection of afforestation sites by Forest Guards ha/year 10 • Protection of afforestation sires by village community ha/year 4 Gallery plantation establishment (AGM) ha 1,008 In-forest range planning and management (AGM) ha 116 Rehabilitation and management of in-forest range areas (AGM) ha 137
A - 84
Rehabilitation of degraded oak coppice areas (OGM) ha 196 • Conservation of natural oak vegetation ha 4 • Rejuvenation cutting ha 145 • Soil preparation by hand labour ha 177 • Seed sowing ha 75 • Seed tonne 500 • Tending, thinning ha 40 • Fencing km 975 3 • Gully plugging m 10 • Construction of service road km 4,500 • Maintenance of service road km 500 Rehabilitation of degraded high forest (OGM) ha 145 • Protection ha 4 • Soil preparation by hand labour ha 177 • Seed sowing ha 75 • Seed tonne 500 • Planting ha 126 • Seedlings 1000 34 • Tending ha 88 • Rejuvenation cutting ha 145 • Pruning ha 35 • Thinning ha 25 • Fencing km 975 Rehabilitation in maquis areas (OGM) ha 165 Non-wood forest products inventory (OGM) ha 33 Combating biotic agencies (OGM) ha 8 Source: AGM Office in Erzurum and other MEF agencies, revised by Mr Muzaffer Dogru, Study Team
A.5.3 Rangeland Rehabilitation by Farmer Participation
Sections 1.5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 have discussed many aspects of the potential roles and responsibilities of villagers in many aspects of soil conservation and control of soil erosion.
It might be useful to introduce the idea of the “Virtuous Cycle of Soil Conservation” in which villagers may be able to contribute to an improving cycle of soil conservation by adopting some or all of the following measures:
• reducing their dependence on forests and rangelands; • changing the composition of their herds towards fewer goats and sheep, and more cattle; • grazing control by managing the timing and places of grazing on the rangelands • rangeland improvement by becoming involved in active pasture rehabilitation; • village development of alternative income-generating activities which minimise the needs for extensive grazing, and thus the pressures on rangelands; • better animal husbandry through better veterinary care and feeding; • introduction of much better conservation tillage on village arable lands;
A - 85
• enthusiastic interest in education and training of farmers and shepherds in better methods for rangeland management; and • active involvement in suitable methods for monitoring and evaluating the impacts of changed approaches to soil conservation.
Any incremental improvement of any one of these measures is likely to reinforce improvements in any others, thus developing an improving, ascending, “virtuous cycle” which could well replace the previous descending cycle of land degradation.
A.5.4 The Sustainability of Interventions
All these techniques for implementation of erosion control and soil conservation will not be very effective unless they are also sustainable – they must be maintained throughout many years. This involves:
• initial training in introducing the various activities and approaches; • ensuring that the activities and approaches are maintained and continued, as appropriate, in the initial years after introduction, including further training; and • ensuring that the benefits to the villagers of adopting these activities and approaches are evident to the farmers in the immediate future, and are also maintained for long into the future.
It is only when villagers are convinced that soil conservation measures are very likely, or even certain, to bring them both immediate and long-term financial benefits, and improvements to their farming systems and livelihoods, that they will adopt these measures and continue to support them as “land managers”, thus becoming effective members of a large group of “soil conservationists” in the Coruh River catchment.
A - 86
A.ANNEXES
A.ANNEX.1 Distribution of Slope Classes by Area (ha) and Percentage in MCs A.ANNEX.2 Geological Types by Area (km2) in each MC A.ANNEX.3 Geological Types by Percentage of each MC A.ANNEX.4 Main Soil Classes, Areas (km2) A.ANNEX.5 Main Soil Classes (Percentage of Area) A.ANNEX.6 Land Capability by Area (ha) A.ANNEX.7 Land Capability by Percentage of each MC A.ANNEX.8 Soil Erosion Areas (ha) and Percentage of each MC in the Four Erosion Classes
A - 87
A.ANNEX.1: Distribution of Slope Classes by Area (ha) and Percentage in MCs
Sub- Name Total Area 0-2% 2-6% 6-12% 12-30% 30-45% >45% 0-2% 2-6% 6-12% 12-30% 30-45% >45% Catchment of MC (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) BT-01 41,673 464 2,357 4,273 15,962 12,740 5,876 1.1 5.7 10.3 38.3 30.6 14.1 BT-02 13,605 84 623 939 4,719 4,744 2,497 0.6 4.6 6.9 34.7 34.9 18.4 BT-03 40,485 1,240 3,373 7,016 17,751 7,970 3,134 3.1 8.3 17.3 43.8 19.7 7.7 BT-04 18,518 479 1,880 3,155 8,991 3,046 967 2.6 10.2 17.0 48.6 16.4 5.2 Berta BT-05 18,419 205 944 1,949 8,128 4,628 2,565 1.1 5.1 10.6 44.1 25.1 13.9 BT-06 34,521 120 742 1,216 6,933 13,564 11,947 0.3 2.2 3.5 20.1 39.3 34.6 BT-07 60,810 833 2,948 5,733 28,864 16,212 6,219 1.4 4.8 9.4 47.5 26.7 10.2 Sub-total 228,030 3,426 12,867 24,281 91,347 62,905 33,204 1.5 5.6 10.6 40.1 27.6 14.6 Lower Coruh LC-01 12,429 58 279 380 2,645 5,291 3,775 0.5 2.2 3.1 21.3 42.6 30.4 LC-02 36,421 158 773 1,361 10,342 14,337 9,450 0.4 2.1 3.7 28.4 39.4 25.9 LC-03 36,349 176 717 1,452 12,293 13,239 8,473 0.5 2.0 4.0 33.8 36.4 23.3 LC-04 21,003 290 918 1,297 6,480 7,385 4,633 1.4 4.4 6.2 30.9 35.2 22.1 A - 88 LC-05 16,135 177 419 612 5,172 6,551 3,204 1.1 2.6 3.8 32.1 40.6 19.9 LC-06 30,168 309 751 1,160 8,044 11,686 8,219 1.0 2.5 3.8 26.7 38.7 27.2 LC-07 25,187 72 379 757 6,450 10,123 7,406 0.3 1.5 3.0 25.6 40.2 29.4 Sub-total 177,693 1,239 4,238 7,020 51,426 68,612 45,159 0.7 2.4 4.0 28.9 38.6 25.4 MC-01 23,854 74 501 857 5,823 9,889 6,710 0.3 2.1 3.6 24.4 41.5 28.1 MC-02 28,463 220 928 1,648 10,527 10,137 5,004 0.8 3.3 5.8 37.0 35.6 17.6 MC-03 21,554 186 656 1,188 8,288 6,976 4,260 0.9 3.0 5.5 38.5 32.4 19.8 MC-04 18,197 234 572 729 3,979 7,386 5,297 1.3 3.1 4.0 21.9 40.6 29.1 MC-05 23,778 158 546 784 4,252 9,655 8,384 0.7 2.3 3.3 17.9 40.6 35.3 Middle Coruh MC-06 26,176 9 281 743 6,637 11,412 7,094 0.0 1.1 2.8 25.4 43.6 27.1 MC-07 16,524 32 298 612 4,276 6,478 4,828 0.2 1.8 3.7 25.9 39.2 29.2 MC-08 31,722 246 927 1,453 8,499 12,177 8,419 0.8 2.9 4.6 26.8 38.4 26.5 MC-09 24,348 47 326 596 4,904 9,660 8,815 0.2 1.3 2.4 20.1 39.7 36.2 MC-10 44,406 147 992 1,754 11,957 16,183 13,374 0.3 2.2 3.9 26.9 36.4 30.1 Sub-total 259,022 1,353 6,028 10,364 69,142 99,952 72,184 0.5 2.3 4.0 26.7 38.6 27.9 Oltu OL-01 27,680 2,292 4,037 5,592 12,631 2,482 645 8.3 14.6 20.2 45.6 9.0 2.3
OL-02 40,775 3,877 5,998 9,659 14,265 5,084 1,891 9.5 14.7 23.7 35.0 12.5 4.6 OL-03 44,773 3,926 6,341 10,404 20,753 2,776 573 8.8 14.2 23.2 46.4 6.2 1.3 OL-04 38,463 2,003 3,989 5,112 16,318 8,296 2,745 5.2 10.4 13.3 42.4 21.6 7.1 OL-05 26,501 2,659 3,333 4,834 11,916 3,086 674 10.0 12.6 18.2 45.0 11.6 2.5 OL-06 25,079 965 2,301 4,272 12,566 3,835 1,140 3.8 9.2 17.0 50.1 15.3 4.5 OL-07 45,638 4,302 7,248 9,542 19,823 3,869 854 9.4 15.9 20.9 43.4 8.5 1.9 OL-08 14,637 622 1,480 3,193 7,214 1,470 658 4.3 10.1 21.8 49.3 10.0 4.5 OL-09 48,782 2,314 6,475 9,311 21,218 7,096 2,368 4.7 13.3 19.1 43.5 14.5 4.9 OL-10 18,585 2,097 2,108 3,171 8,579 2,120 510 11.3 11.3 17.1 46.2 11.4 2.7 OL-11 46,179 2,645 5,084 10,887 17,640 7,107 2,816 5.7 11.0 23.6 38.2 15.4 6.1 OL-12 37,312 886 2,573 4,226 16,971 8,308 4,348 2.4 6.9 11.3 45.5 22.3 11.7 OL-13 13,403 242 613 861 4,205 3,942 3,540 1.8 4.6 6.4 31.4 29.4 26.4 OL-14 17,789 385 1,036 1,359 8,828 4,499 1,681 2.2 5.8 7.6 49.6 25.3 9.5 OL-15 32,989 360 1,547 2,318 12,653 9,435 6,677 1.1 4.7 7.0 38.4 28.6 20.2 OL-16 22,675 1,868 2,434 3,105 9,739 4,302 1,228 8.2 10.7 13.7 43.0 19.0 5.4 Sub-total 501,260 31,444 56,598 87,846 215,319 77,706 32,347 6.3 11.3 17.5 43.0 15.5 6.5 A - 89 TR-01 38,331 1,534 3,486 5,040 17,236 7,451 3,584 4.0 9.1 13.1 45.0 19.4 9.3 TR-02 34,858 1,418 4,305 7,036 15,257 4,944 1,898 4.1 12.3 20.2 43.8 14.2 5.4 TR-03 29,090 1,946 3,777 5,128 10,020 5,556 2,663 6.7 13.0 17.6 34.4 19.1 9.2 Tortum TR-04 38,548 1,362 3,292 6,157 12,205 10,150 5,381 3.5 8.5 16.0 31.7 26.3 14.0 TR-05 31,523 679 1,335 1,774 11,961 9,540 6,234 2.2 4.2 5.6 37.9 30.3 19.8 TR-06 30,684 330 1,138 1,760 9,315 10,058 8,083 1.1 3.7 5.7 30.4 32.8 26.3 Sub-total 203,035 7,269 17,333 26,896 75,995 47,699 27,843 3.6 8.5 13.2 37.4 23.5 13.7 Upper Coruh UC-01 51,532 2,802 7,105 8,832 20,687 9,552 2,555 5.4 13.8 17.1 40.1 18.5 5.0 UC-02 41,129 2,756 4,514 6,238 20,078 5,835 1,708 6.7 11.0 15.2 48.8 14.2 4.2 UC-03 21,873 1,286 1,867 2,372 8,953 5,540 1,855 5.9 8.5 10.8 40.9 25.3 8.5 UC-04 44,212 2,428 4,522 6,390 21,197 7,565 2,112 5.5 10.2 14.5 47.9 17.1 4.8 UC-05 24,038 2,466 2,752 3,099 10,036 4,585 1,100 10.3 11.4 12.9 41.8 19.1 4.6 UC-06 21,264 5,199 5,066 4,809 5,390 700 101 24.4 23.8 22.6 25.3 3.3 0.5 UC-07 79,695 19,703 14,578 14,500 24,550 5,428 936 24.7 18.3 18.2 30.8 6.8 1.2 UC-08 80,357 14,320 13,739 13,554 29,960 7,750 1,034 17.8 17.1 16.9 37.3 9.6 1.3 UC-09 42,230 5,292 5,539 6,106 17,206 6,955 1,131 12.5 13.1 14.5 40.7 16.5 2.7 UC-10 19,058 949 1,558 1,857 8,675 4,762 1,258 5.0 8.2 9.7 45.5 25.0 6.6
UC-11 28,316 4,087 3,973 5,001 12,487 2,455 312 14.4 14.0 17.7 44.1 8.7 1.1 UC-12 20,439 823 2,111 3,448 10,158 3,054 845 4.0 10.3 16.9 49.7 14.9 4.1 UC-13 27,858 966 2,249 3,744 11,958 6,472 2,469 3.5 8.1 13.4 42.9 23.2 8.9 UC-14 31,167 535 1,471 3,432 13,465 8,515 3,749 1.7 4.7 11.0 43.2 27.3 12.0 UC-15 46,224 1,501 3,804 4,859 22,494 10,962 2,603 3.2 8.2 10.5 48.7 23.7 5.6 UC-16 33,637 443 1,852 2,624 14,871 9,963 3,884 1.3 5.5 7.8 44.2 29.6 11.5 UC-17 38,785 185 927 1,689 9,903 15,872 10,209 0.5 2.4 4.4 25.5 40.9 26.3 Sub-total 651,814 65,739 77,627 92,556 262,065 115,965 37,862 10.1 11.9 14.2 40.2 17.8 5.8 Others 665 Total 2,020,855 110,470 174,691 248,963 765,293 472,838 248,599 5.5 8.6 12.3 37.9 23.4 12.3 Source: remote sensed data processed by the GIS
A - 90
A.ANNEX.2: Geological Types by area (km2) in each MC
Mesoz. Eoc., Oligo- Upper Lower (Ophiol. Neog., Neog., Upper Name Total Eoc., Volc. Juras.- Lower Mioc., Paleoz., Upper Cret., Upper SC A K Lias Cret., Malm Series), Volc. Cont, Q Cret., Y Others of MC Area Flysch Cret. Cret. Gypsif. Metam., Cret. Volc. Mioc. Flysch Mainly Facies Undif. Flysch Facies Facies Facies Cret.
Berta BT-01 417 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 155 0 0 0 BT-02 136 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 BT-03 405 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 209 0 0 0 BT-04 185 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 BT-05 184 10 0 33 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 BT-06 345 85 0 0 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 166 0 0 0 BT-07 608 46 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 18 0 486 0 0 0
A - 91 Sub-total 2,280 670 53 33 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 75 3 18 0 1,356 0 0 0 LC-01 124 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 LC-02 364 0 0 34 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 295 0 0 0 LC-03 363 0 0 88 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 265 0 0 0 LC-04 210 0 0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 Lower Coruh LC-05 161 7 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 LC-06 302 60 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 0 0 0 LC-07 252 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 0 0 0 Sub-total 1,777 190 0 470 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 960 0 0 0 MC-01 239 20 0 11 0 207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MC-02 285 22 0 169 0 13 21 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 37 0 0 0 0 0 MC-03 216 0 103 47 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 7 0 0 35 0 MC-04 182 0 2 30 0 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 MC-05 238 3 1 143 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 3 0 Middle Coruh MC-06 262 10 0 0 0 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 MC-07 165 11 0 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 MC-08 317 0 0 26 0 62 0 0 7 22 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 99 0 47 0 MC-09 243 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 142 0 0 0 65 0 12 0 MC-10 444 0 0 0 66 15 2 0 14 65 0 0 0 0 31 0 22 0 190 0 39 0 Sub-total 2,590 66 106 426 66 925 27 0 25 105 0 0 0 0 227 40 59 7 364 0 147 0
Oltu OL-01 277 196 28 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OL-02 408 33 51 0 0 2 0 0 18 0 24 0 0 113 0 3 0 108 30 0 24 0 OL-03 448 224 48 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 131 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 0 OL-04 385 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 5 0 0 0 21 2 24 0 209 0 0 22 0 OL-05 265 20 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 22 143 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 OL-06 251 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OL-07 456 307 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OL-08 146 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OL-09 488 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 OL-10 186 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 23 104 6 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 OL-11 462 225 27 0 0 0 0 0 25 49 0 0 0 27 47 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 OL-12 373 15 94 0 0 0 2 0 6 84 0 0 0 16 21 0 131 0 0 0 2 0 OL-13 134 0 0 0 0 13 24 0 5 68 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 OL-14 178 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 17 14 0 0 0 0 137 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 OL-15 330 0 0 0 0 19 4 0 185 78 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 6 0 0 1 0
A - 92 OL-16 227 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 10 0 0 0 62 32 11 36 19 25 0 0 0 Sub-total 5,013 1,636 306 63 0 38 30 0 360 309 285 5 273 618 283 57 256 344 69 0 72 8 TR-01 383 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 13 0 110 0 9 0 0 0 116 0 0 1 0 TR-02 349 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11 0 30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 TR-03 291 237 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tortum TR-04 385 94 0 40 0 5 20 0 19 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 TR-05 315 1 16 59 0 23 1 0 116 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 23 0 TR-06 307 0 0 0 0 35 2 0 111 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 2,030 686 16 99 0 62 23 0 336 450 0 139 0 9 0 0 4 182 0 0 24 0 Upper Coruh UC-01 515 116 0 0 0 0 6 28 2 301 14 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 30 0 0 UC-02 411 0 15 0 0 0 3 78 153 15 12 0 0 0 1 0 48 2 0 79 6 0 UC-03 219 0 1 0 0 0 63 114 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 UC-04 442 0 173 0 0 0 13 104 43 0 18 0 0 0 2 15 47 0 0 13 16 0 UC-05 240 0 38 1 0 0 18 155 0 3 15 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 UC-06 213 0 64 1 0 0 18 77 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 49 0 0 0 1 0 0 UC-07 797 0 15 0 0 13 191 167 0 8 0 0 0 0 234 164 0 0 0 0 0 5 UC-08 804 1 85 121 4 27 105 15 0 150 0 0 0 0 63 129 0 0 77 10 0 18 UC-09 422 0 0 194 0 78 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 119 12 0 0 UC-10 191 0 0 102 0 85 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UC-11 283 0 68 19 0 0 113 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 2 0 0 0 0
UC-12 204 0 55 7 0 9 111 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 UC-13 279 0 33 34 0 0 72 0 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 UC-14 312 7 0 140 0 2 62 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 14 18 0 0 0 0 0 UC-15 462 0 0 280 0 181 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 UC-16 336 0 0 65 0 271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UC-17 388 10 0 43 0 334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 6,518 134 548 1,006 4 1,000 782 738 197 767 58 0 0 0 302 475 118 4 196 144 22 24 Others 7 Total 20,209 3,383 1,028 2,097 104 2,039 862 738 918 1,632 343 145 273 669 1,025 574456 536 2,945 144 265 32 Note: Others include Cretaceous, undifferentiated with 8km2, Permo-Carboniferous with 14 km2 and Pliocene, Continental with 10 km2. Source: JICA Study Team calculation using GIS based on old (1960s) Geology maps (scale 1:500,000) by MTA.
A - 93
A.ANNEX.3: Geological types by percentage of each MC
Mesoz. Oligo- Upper Eoc., Lower (Ophiol. Neog., Neog., Upper Name Eoc., Juras.- Lower Mioc., Paleoz., Upper Cret., Upper SC Total A Volc. K Lias Cret., Malm Series), Volc. Cont, Q Cret., Y Others of MC Flysch Cret. Cret. Gypsif. Metam., Cret. Volc. Mioc. Facies Flysch Mainly Facies Undif. Flysch Facies Facies Cret.
Berta BT-01 100.0 58.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 BT-02 100.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 BT-03 100.0 42.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 BT-04 100.0 51.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 BT-05 100.0 5.4 0.0 18.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 BT-06 100.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 BT-07 100.0 7.5 8.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 3.0 0.0 79.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
A - 94 Sub-total 100.0 29.4 2.3 1.5 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.3 0.1 0.8 0.0 59.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 LC-01 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 LC-02 100.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 LC-03 100.0 0.0 0.0 24.3 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 LC-04 100.0 0.0 0.0 91.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lower Coruh LC-05 100.0 4.5 0.0 37.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 LC-06 100.0 20.0 0.0 31.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 LC-07 100.0 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub-total 100.0 10.7 0.0 26.4 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Coruh MC-01 100.0 8.5 0.0 4.6 0.0 86.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MC-02 100.0 7.6 0.0 59.2 0.0 4.5 7.4 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MC-03 100.0 0.0 47.7 21.8 0.0 3.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 MC-04 100.0 0.0 1.3 16.4 0.0 80.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MC-05 100.0 1.3 0.3 60.0 0.0 33.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 MC-06 100.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 MC-07 100.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 MC-08 100.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.1 0.0 15.0 0.0 MC-09 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 0.0 5.1 0.0
MC-10 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 3.5 0.4 0.0 3.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 4.9 0.0 42.9 0.0 8.7 0.0 Sub-total 100.0 2.6 4.1 16.5 2.6 35.7 1.0 0.0 1.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 1.5 2.3 0.3 14.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 Oltu OL-01 100.0 71.0 10.0 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OL-02 100.0 8.2 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 26.6 7.4 0.0 5.9 0.0 OL-03 100.0 50.0 10.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 OL-04 100.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.4 6.2 0.0 54.4 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 OL-05 100.0 7.5 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 8.3 53.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 OL-06 100.0 56.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.7 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OL-07 100.0 67.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.3 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OL-08 100.0 64.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 21.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OL-09 100.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 30.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 OL-10 100.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 56.2 3.2 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OL-11 100.0 48.7 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 10.1 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OL-12 100.0 4.0 25.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.7 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 5.8 0.0 35.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 OL-13 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 17.6 0.0 3.9 50.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 OL-14 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.9 0.0 2.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A - 95 OL-15 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.3 0.0 56.2 23.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 OL-16 100.0 6.6 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 14.0 5.0 15.9 8.4 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub-total 100.0 32.6 6.1 1.3 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 7.2 6.2 5.7 0.1 5.5 12.3 5.6 1.1 5.1 6.9 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.2 TR-01 100.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 3.4 0.0 28.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 TR-02 100.0 85.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 3.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TR-03 100.0 81.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tortum TR-04 100.0 24.3 0.0 10.4 0.0 1.3 5.3 0.0 5.0 52.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TR-05 100.0 0.3 5.0 18.7 0.0 7.2 0.3 0.0 36.8 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 TR-06 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.6 0.0 36.2 37.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Sub-total 100.0 33.8 0.8 4.9 0.0 3.1 1.1 0.0 16.5 22.2 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 8.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 Upper Coruh UC-01 100.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 5.4 0.4 58.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 UC-02 100.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 19.0 37.2 3.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 11.6 0.4 0.0 19.1 1.5 0.0 UC-03 100.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.8 52.3 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UC-04 100.0 0.0 39.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 23.5 9.6 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.3 10.7 0.0 0.0 2.8 3.6 0.0 UC-05 100.0 0.0 15.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.5 64.3 0.0 1.2 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UC-06 100.0 0.0 30.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 36.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 UC-07 100.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 23.9 21.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.4 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
UC-08 100.0 0.1 10.5 15.0 0.5 3.4 13.1 1.8 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 16.1 0.0 0.0 9.5 1.2 0.0 2.3 UC-09 100.0 0.0 0.0 46.0 0.0 18.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 28.3 2.8 0.0 0.0 UC-10 100.0 0.0 0.0 53.3 0.0 44.6 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UC-11 100.0 0.0 24.1 6.8 0.0 0.0 40.1 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UC-12 100.0 0.0 26.9 3.4 0.0 4.6 54.3 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UC-13 100.0 0.0 11.9 12.2 0.0 0.0 25.9 0.0 0.0 42.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UC-14 100.0 2.2 0.0 44.9 0.0 0.5 19.9 0.0 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UC-15 100.0 0.0 0.0 60.5 0.0 39.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UC-16 100.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 0.0 80.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UC-17 100.0 2.6 0.0 11.2 0.0 86.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub-total 100.0 2.1 8.4 15.4 0.1 15.3 12.0 11.3 3.0 11.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 7.3 1.8 0.1 3.0 2.2 0.3 0.4 Others Total 100.0 16.7 5.1 10.4 0.5 10.1 4.3 3.7 4.5 8.1 1.7 0.7 1.4 3.3 5.1 2.8 2.3 2.7 14.6 0.7 1.3 0.2 Note: Others include Cretaceous, undifferentiated, Permo-Carboniferous and Pliocene, Continental. Source: Old (1960s) MTA geological maos for Trabzon, Erzurum and Kars (1:500,000), processed by Study GIS
A - 96
A.ANNEX.4: Main Soil Classes, areas (km2)
Non- High Non- Red- Allu- Basalt- Brown Chest- Collu- calcic Brown Mountain calcic Yellow Sub- SC vial ic Forest nut vium Brown Others No data Soils Pasture Brown Podzolic total Soils Soils Soils Soils Soils Forest Soils Soils Soils Soils
BT-01 0 0 272 0 0 0 82 0 0 40 0 22 417 BT-02 0 0 109 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 14 136 BT-03 1 0 325 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 13 405 BT-04 0 0 124 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 17 185 BT-05 0 0 162 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 2 184 BT-06 0 0 264 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 61 345 BT-07 0 0 462 0 3 2 106 0 0 0 0 35 608 1 0 1,717 0 3 2 351 0 0 40 0 165 2,280 LC-01 0 0 75 0 0 0 2 42 0 0 0 5 124 LC-02 0 0 142 0 0 0 31 156 0 22 0 12 364 LC-03 0 0 19 0 0 1 29 3 0 288 0 24 364 LC-04 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 45 0 157 0 2 210 LC-05 0 0 151 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 4 161 LC-06 0 0 1 0 0 0 22 268 0 1 0 10 302 LC-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 207 0 20 239 1 0 393 0 0 1 100 518 0 675 0 76 1,765 MC-01 1 0 150 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 46 244 MC-02 0 37 223 0 13 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 285 MC-03 2 2 185 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 23 216 MC-04 4 0 105 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 50 182 MC-05 2 0 169 0 0 0 3 25 0 0 0 39 238 MC-06 2 0 0 0 0 0 63 145 0 1 0 50 262 MC-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 30 0 0 0 60 165 MC-08 0 0 182 0 0 0 53 20 0 0 0 62 318 MC-09 0 0 197 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 37 243 MC-10 0 0 373 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 52 444 12 39 1,584 0 13 0 307 220 0 1 0 419 2,596 OL-01 0 264 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 276 OL-02 0 119 0 215 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 43 408 OL-03 0 351 0 67 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 10 448 OL-04 0 39 91 201 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 15 385 OL-05 0 76 2 129 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 34 265 OL-06 0 227 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 251 OL-07 0 194 0 0 142 6 0 94 0 0 0 21 456 OL-08 0 141 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 197 OL-09 0 322 0 97 39 2 0 0 0 0 0 32 492 OL-10 0 28 50 78 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 12 186 OL-11 0 96 128 0 110 8 88 0 0 0 0 28 458 OL-12 0 1 110 0 93 4 49 0 0 0 0 116 373
A - 97
OL-13 1 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 134 OL-14 0 0 159 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 15 178 OL-15 1 0 296 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 28 330 OL-16 0 0 157 51 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 4 227 2 1,857 1,084 869 384 178 137 94 0 0 0 457 5,063 TR-01 0 80 1 213 50 15 0 0 0 0 0 26 383 TR-02 0 226 0 34 53 8 0 0 0 0 0 28 349 TR-03 0 239 0 24 20 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 291 TR-04 0 302 0 0 55 12 0 0 0 0 0 14 384 TR-05 2 40 224 0 0 2 20 0 0 0 2 25 315 TR-06 0 12 272 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 12 307 2 898 497 274 177 49 20 0 0 0 4 107 2,029 UC-01 17 115 0 46 328 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 519 UC-02 2 0 0 70 289 11 0 0 0 0 0 39 411 UC-03 11 0 2 164 0 2 37 0 0 0 0 2 219 UC-04 6 0 0 130 216 12 0 0 0 0 0 77 441 UC-05 15 0 0 202 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 240 UC-06 28 0 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 212 UC-07 132 0 0 595 0 29 0 24 8 0 0 8 797 UC-08 88 0 15 467 0 21 123 43 34 0 0 13 804 UC-09 45 0 0 67 0 2 126 0 172 0 0 9 422 UC-10 2 0 0 31 0 1 55 0 88 0 0 14 191 UC-11 16 0 0 229 0 5 9 0 18 0 0 7 283 UC-12 0 0 0 183 1 3 15 0 0 0 0 2 204 UC-13 0 0 0 20 248 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 276 UC-14 0 47 23 0 209 1 0 0 0 0 0 32 312 UC-15 171 0 0 13 147 0 14 0 1 0 2 114 462 UC-16 42 0 68 0 51 1 104 0 0 0 0 65 331 UC-17 0 0 171 0 0 1 146 0 0 0 0 68 386 575 162 280 2,401 1,505 101 630 67 320 0 2 469 6,512
Total 593 2,956 5,555 3,545 2,082 333 1,545 900 320 717 6 1,694 20,244 Note: Others include Gray Brown Podzolic soils with 4 km2 and Saline-Alkaline and Mixture soils with 2 km2. Source: JICA Study Team based on GIS data by GDRS.
A - 98
A.ANNEX.5: Main Soil Classes (Percentage of Area)
Non- High Non- Red- Allu- Brown Chest- Collu- calcic Basaltic Brown Mountain calcic Yellow SC vial Forest nut vium Brown Others No data Total Soils Soils Pasture Brown Podzolic Soils Soils Soils Soils Forest Soils Soils Soils Soils
BT-01 0.0% 0.0% 65.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.7% 0.0% 5.4% 100.0% BT-02 0.0% 0.0% 79.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6% 100.0% BT-03 0.1% 0.0% 80.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 100.0% BT-04 0.2% 0.0% 66.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0% BT-05 0.0% 0.0% 88.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 100.0% BT-06 0.0% 0.0% 76.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.8% 100.0% BT-07 0.0% 0.0% 75.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 17.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.8% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 7.3% 100.0% LC-01 0.0% 0.0% 60.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 33.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 100.0% LC-02 0.0% 0.0% 39.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6% 42.9% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 3.3% 100.0% LC-03 0.1% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 7.9% 0.8% 0.0% 79.1% 0.0% 6.7% 100.0% LC-04 0.4% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.7% 0.0% 74.7% 0.0% 0.8% 100.0% LC-05 0.0% 0.0% 93.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 100.0% LC-06 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.2% 89.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 3.2% 100.0% LC-07 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 0.2% 0.0% 86.4% 0.0% 8.3% 100.0% 0.1% 0.0% 22.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 5.6% 29.4% 0.0% 38.2% 0.0% 4.3% 100.0% MC-01 0.4% 0.0% 61.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.9% 100.0% MC-02 0.0% 13.0% 78.4% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 100.0% MC-03 1.2% 1.1% 85.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 100.0% MC-04 2.2% 0.0% 57.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.3% 100.0% MC-05 0.8% 0.0% 71.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.6% 100.0% MC-06 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.9% 55.4% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 19.2% 100.0% MC-07 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.7% 18.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.3% 100.0% MC-08 0.1% 0.0% 57.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.8% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.4% 100.0% MC-09 0.0% 0.0% 80.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.1% 100.0% MC-10 0.0% 0.0% 83.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.6% 100.0% 0.5% 1.5% 61.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 11.8% 8.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 16.1% 100.0% OL-01 0.0% 95.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 100.0% OL-02 0.0% 29.3% 0.0% 52.7% 0.0% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 100.0% OL-03 0.0% 78.3% 0.0% 14.9% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 100.0% OL-04 0.0% 10.0% 23.7% 52.3% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 100.0% OL-05 0.0% 28.6% 0.7% 48.6% 0.0% 9.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.9% 100.0% OL-06 0.0% 90.3% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.2% 100.0% OL-07 0.0% 42.5% 0.0% 0.0% 31.1% 1.3% 0.0% 20.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 100.0% OL-08 0.0% 71.8% 0.0% 12.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.5% 100.0% OL-09 0.0% 65.4% 0.0% 19.8% 8.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 100.0% OL-10 0.0% 14.8% 26.7% 42.2% 0.0% 9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 100.0% OL-11 0.0% 21.0% 28.1% 0.0% 24.1% 1.6% 19.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 100.0% OL-12 0.0% 0.1% 29.5% 0.0% 24.9% 1.2% 13.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31.0% 100.0% OL-13 0.9% 0.0% 67.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31.1% 100.0%
A - 99
OL-14 0.0% 0.0% 89.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 100.0% OL-15 0.3% 0.0% 89.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6% 100.0% OL-16 0.0% 0.0% 69.1% 22.4% 0.0% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 100.0% 0.0% 36.7% 21.4% 17.2% 7.6% 3.5% 2.7% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 100.0% TR-01 0.0% 20.7% 0.2% 55.5% 12.9% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 100.0% TR-02 0.0% 64.7% 0.0% 9.7% 15.1% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 100.0% TR-03 0.0% 82.1% 0.0% 8.4% 6.8% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 100.0% TR-04 0.0% 78.7% 0.0% 0.0% 14.4% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 100.0% TR-05 0.6% 12.6% 70.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 8.1% 100.0% TR-06 0.0% 3.9% 88.7% 1.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 3.8% 100.0% 0.1% 44.3% 24.5% 13.5% 8.7% 2.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.3% 100.0% UC-01 3.3% 22.2% 0.0% 8.8% 63.2% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 100.0% UC-02 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 17.1% 70.2% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 100.0% UC-03 5.0% 0.0% 1.0% 75.0% 0.0% 1.0% 17.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 100.0% UC-04 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 29.6% 49.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.6% 100.0% UC-05 6.2% 0.0% 0.0% 84.1% 6.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 100.0% UC-06 13.1% 0.0% 0.0% 86.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 100.0% UC-07 16.6% 0.0% 0.1% 74.7% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 3.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 100.0% UC-08 10.9% 0.0% 1.9% 58.1% 0.0% 2.7% 15.3% 5.3% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 100.0% UC-09 10.8% 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 0.0% 0.4% 29.9% 0.0% 40.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 100.0% UC-10 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 0.0% 0.7% 29.1% 0.0% 46.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 100.0% UC-11 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 80.9% 0.0% 1.7% 3.1% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 100.0% UC-12 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 89.5% 0.4% 1.5% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 100.0% UC-13 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.3% 89.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 100.0% UC-14 0.0% 14.9% 7.3% 0.0% 67.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.2% 100.0% UC-15 37.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 31.8% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 24.8% 100.0% UC-16 12.8% 0.0% 20.6% 0.0% 15.4% 0.4% 31.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.6% 100.0% UC-17 0.0% 0.0% 44.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 37.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.5% 100.0% 8.8% 2.5% 4.3% 36.9% 23.1% 1.6% 9.7% 1.0% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 7.2% 100.0%
Total 2.9% 14.6% 27.4% 17.5% 10.3% 1.6% 7.6% 4.4% 1.6% 3.5% 0.0% 8.4% 100.0% Note: Others include Gray Brown Podzolic soils and Saline-Alkaline and Mixture soils. Source: JICA Study Team based on GIS data by GDRS.
A - 100
A.ANNEX.6: Land Capability by area (ha)
I II III IV VI VII VIII No data Sub-total BT-01 206 2,220 11,714 25,298 2,181 53 41,672 BT-02 101 562 2,256 9,238 1,428 20 13,605 BT-03 53 1,828 5,794 12,931 18,581 1,198 100 40,485 BT-04 40 476 3,155 5,509 7,648 1,649 41 18,518 BT-05 199 2,093 7,070 8,863 101 93 18,419 BT-06 28 315 2,806 25,222 6,088 61 34,521 BT-07 49 1,530 4,456 19,069 32,175 3,347 180 60,806 0 141 4,368 18,596 61,356 127,026 15,991 547 228,025 LC-01 95 440 11,366 506 22 12,429 LC-02 35 5,815 29,368 873 330 36,421 LC-03 24 893 6,459 26,562 2,278 153 36,370 LC-04 75 154 1,841 18,769 76 89 21,004 LC-05 43 225 1,823 13,680 190 174 16,135 LC-06 289 3,561 25,354 767 198 30,168 LC-07 185 2,081 19,682 1,929 61 23,939 75 24 43 1,877 22,021 144,780 6,619 1,027 176,466 MC-01 99 39 4,887 14,740 4,471 134 24,369 MC-02 1,482 5,080 21,801 99 28,462 MC-03 222 26 540 3,642 14,863 2,225 36 21,554 MC-04 339 67 115 2,756 9,958 4,899 64 18,197 MC-05 182 690 683 18,285 3,851 88 23,778 MC-06 74 7,548 13,518 4,993 22 26,156 MC-07 7,783 2,739 5,981 21 16,524 MC-08 34 234 494 5,901 18,932 6,087 73 31,757 MC-09 19 194 2,047 18,414 3,540 134 24,348 MC-10 3 3,130 4,248 31,859 4,680 487 44,406 0 876 349 5,275 40,977 148,387 62,529 1,159 259,552 OL-01 27 445 4,939 6,023 15,276 803 112 27,625 OL-02 1,368 1,035 1,820 5,840 5,739 20,674 4,115 180 40,771 OL-03 1,379 467 741 5,367 6,559 29,267 855 194 44,829 OL-04 6 3,668 456 4,613 28,251 1,259 258 38,512 OL-05 748 3,038 5,114 1,134 13,010 3,106 301 26,451 OL-06 612 3,870 607 18,180 1,744 67 25,079 OL-07 1,940 7,849 4,806 3,611 25,345 1,908 182 45,641 OL-08 1,246 770 6,323 8,281 2,987 72 19,680 OL-09 366 201 15,323 7,426 22,733 2,888 264 49,201 OL-10 741 2,524 1,043 2,775 10,299 1,017 186 18,584 OL-11 137 2,010 4,420 7,910 28,551 1,552 1,199 45,779 OL-12 15 631 2,364 7,062 15,660 2,049 9,531 37,312 OL-13 122 28 744 1,166 7,171 3,757 414 13,403 OL-14 434 382 6,620 8,882 1,399 71 17,789 OL-15 87 449 1,421 1,962 26,233 2,742 96 32,989 OL-16 1,128 636 3,858 16,633 305 117 22,677 2,774 6,791 26,332 56,858 73,388 294,445 32,487 13,245 506,322 TR-01 385 1,304 2,295 5,509 26,286 2,404 148 38,331 TR-02 587 1,570 7,526 7,032 15,333 2,710 117 34,876
A - 101
TR-03 1,200 832 8,499 3,248 15,137 32 143 29,091 TR-04 1,701 888 7,529 2,955 23,881 1,364 68 38,387 TR-05 183 183 704 4,868 23,040 2,457 83 31,519 TR-06 6 220 594 5,383 23,302 1,161 19 30,684 0 4,062 4,998 27,146 28,995 126,980 10,128 579 202,889 UC-01 3,274 115 4,945 7,019 36,144 424 51,919 UC-02 778 658 4,968 6,052 24,774 3,694 206 41,129 UC-03 1,410 64 640 4,727 14,821 77 133 21,873 UC-04 31 1,328 415 5,240 2,473 26,869 7,562 181 44,098 UC-05 1,688 75 1,722 1,418 18,581 211 343 24,038 UC-06 3,752 2,390 2,849 5,325 6,706 23 175 21,220 UC-07 9,058 5,436 9,321 4,077 7,846 43,152 805 79,695 UC-08 2,255 10,520 5,179 6,281 18,108 36,810 801 449 80,402 UC-09 4,751 2,530 1,224 14,394 18,432 435 458 42,224 UC-10 370 6,530 10,802 1,209 154 19,065 UC-11 2,043 1,319 3,862 4,815 15,564 394 318 28,316 UC-12 112 362 740 3,134 15,848 105 137 20,439 UC-13 231 1,437 2,912 1,829 20,506 476 226 27,617 UC-14 908 197 2,467 5,119 19,303 2,930 244 31,167 UC-15 17,326 171 375 2,542 14,364 11,117 328 46,224 UC-16 4,337 214 527 10,513 11,048 6,306 176 33,122 UC-17 9 126 14,749 16,964 6,564 212 38,623 11,344 58,272 24,574 42,827 116,593 350,687 41,905 4,968 651,171
Totals 14,194 70,166 60,664 152,580 343,331 1,192,305 169,659 21,525 2,024,424 Sources: GDRS data processed by the Study GIS
A - 102
A.ANNEX.7: Land Capability by percentage of each MC
I II III IV VI VII VIII No data Sub-total BT-01 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.3 28.1 60.7 5.2 0.1 41,672 BT-02 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.1 16.6 67.9 10.5 0.1 13,605 BT-03 0.0 0.1 4.5 14.3 31.9 45.9 3.0 0.2 40,485 BT-04 0.0 0.2 2.6 17.0 29.8 41.3 8.9 0.2 18,518 BT-05 0.0 0.0 1.1 11.4 38.4 48.1 0.6 0.5 18,419 BT-06 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 8.1 73.1 17.6 0.2 34,521 BT-07 0.0 0.1 2.5 7.3 31.4 52.9 5.5 0.3 60,806 0.0 0.1 1.9 8.2 26.9 55.7 7.0 0.2 228,025 LC-01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.5 91.4 4.1 0.2 12,429 LC-02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 16.0 80.6 2.4 0.9 36,421 LC-03 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.5 17.8 73.0 6.3 0.4 36,370 LC-04 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 8.8 89.4 0.4 0.4 21,004 LC-05 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.4 11.3 84.8 1.2 1.1 16,135 LC-06 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 11.8 84.0 2.5 0.7 30,168 LC-07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 8.7 82.2 8.1 0.3 23,939 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 12.5 82.0 3.8 0.6 176,466 MC-01 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 20.1 60.5 18.3 0.6 24,369 MC-02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 17.8 76.6 0.3 28,462 MC-03 0.0 1.0 0.1 2.5 16.9 69.0 10.3 0.2 21,554 MC-04 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.6 15.1 54.7 26.9 0.3 18,197 MC-05 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.9 2.9 76.9 16.2 0.4 23,778 MC-06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 28.9 51.7 19.1 0.1 26,156 MC-07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.1 16.6 36.2 0.1 16,524 MC-08 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.6 18.6 59.6 19.2 0.2 31,757 MC-09 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 8.4 75.6 14.5 0.6 24,348 MC-10 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 9.6 71.7 10.5 1.1 44,406 0.0 0.3 0.1 2.0 15.8 57.2 24.1 0.4 259,552 OL-01 0.1 0.0 1.6 17.9 21.8 55.3 2.9 0.4 27,625 OL-02 3.4 2.5 4.5 14.3 14.1 50.7 10.1 0.4 40,771 OL-03 3.1 1.0 1.7 12.0 14.6 65.3 1.9 0.4 44,829 OL-04 0.0 0.0 9.5 1.2 12.0 73.4 3.3 0.7 38,512 OL-05 0.0 2.8 11.5 19.3 4.3 49.2 11.7 1.1 26,451 OL-06 0.0 0.0 2.4 15.4 2.4 72.5 7.0 0.3 25,079 OL-07 0.0 4.3 17.2 10.5 7.9 55.5 4.2 0.4 45,641 OL-08 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.9 32.1 42.1 15.2 0.4 19,680 OL-09 0.0 0.7 0.4 31.1 15.1 46.2 5.9 0.5 49,201 OL-10 0.0 4.0 13.6 5.6 14.9 55.4 5.5 1.0 18,584 OL-11 0.0 0.3 4.4 9.7 17.3 62.4 3.4 2.6 45,779 OL-12 0.0 0.0 1.7 6.3 18.9 42.0 5.5 25.5 37,312 OL-13 0.0 0.9 0.2 5.6 8.7 53.5 28.0 3.1 13,403 OL-14 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.1 37.2 49.9 7.9 0.4 17,789 OL-15 0.0 0.3 1.4 4.3 5.9 79.5 8.3 0.3 32,989 OL-16 0.0 5.0 2.8 0.0 17.0 73.3 1.3 0.5 22,677 0.5 1.3 5.2 11.2 14.5 58.2 6.4 2.6 506,322 TR-01 0.0 1.0 3.4 6.0 14.4 68.6 6.3 0.4 38,331
A - 103
TR-02 0.0 1.7 4.5 21.6 20.2 44.0 7.8 0.3 34,876 TR-03 0.0 4.1 2.9 29.2 11.2 52.0 0.1 0.5 29,091 TR-04 0.0 4.4 2.3 19.6 7.7 62.2 3.6 0.2 38,387 TR-05 0.0 0.6 0.6 2.2 15.4 73.1 7.8 0.3 31,519 TR-06 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.9 17.5 75.9 3.8 0.1 30,684 0.0 2.0 2.5 13.4 14.3 62.6 5.0 0.3 202,889 UC-01 0.0 6.3 0.2 9.5 13.5 69.6 0.0 0.8 51,919 UC-02 0.0 1.9 1.6 12.1 14.7 60.2 9.0 0.5 41,129 UC-03 0.0 6.4 0.3 2.9 21.6 67.8 0.4 0.6 21,873 UC-04 0.1 3.0 0.9 11.9 5.6 60.9 17.1 0.4 44,098 UC-05 0.0 7.0 0.3 7.2 5.9 77.3 0.9 1.4 24,038 UC-06 0.0 17.7 11.3 13.4 25.1 31.6 0.1 0.8 21,220 UC-07 11.4 6.8 11.7 5.1 9.8 54.1 0.0 1.0 79,695 UC-08 2.8 13.1 6.4 7.8 22.5 45.8 1.0 0.6 80,402 UC-09 0.0 11.3 6.0 2.9 34.1 43.7 1.0 1.1 42,224 UC-10 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 34.2 56.7 6.3 0.8 19,065 UC-11 0.0 7.2 4.7 13.6 17.0 55.0 1.4 1.1 28,316 UC-12 0.0 0.5 1.8 3.6 15.3 77.5 0.5 0.7 20,439 UC-13 0.0 0.8 5.2 10.5 6.6 74.3 1.7 0.8 27,617 UC-14 0.0 2.9 0.6 7.9 16.4 61.9 9.4 0.8 31,167 UC-15 0.0 37.5 0.4 0.8 5.5 31.1 24.1 0.7 46,224 UC-16 0.0 13.1 0.6 1.6 31.7 33.4 19.0 0.5 33,122 UC-17 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 38.2 43.9 17.0 0.5 38,623 1.7 8.9 3.8 6.6 17.9 53.9 6.4 0.8 651,171
Totals 0.7 3.5 3.0 7.5 17.0 58.9 8.4 1.1 2,024,424 Sources: GDRS data processed by the Study GIS
A - 104
A.ANNEX.8: Soil Erosion areas (ha) and percentage of each MC in the four Erosion Classes
Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Total Area Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class SC Name of MC No Data No Data (ha) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (%) (%) (%) (%) BT-01 41,672 0 11,218 25,192 3,027 2,234 0.0 26.9 60.5 7.3 5.4 BT-02 13,605 0 2,920 9,238 0 1,448 0.0 21.5 67.9 0.0 10.6 BT-03 40,485 53 18,021 18,677 2,437 1,297 0.1 44.5 46.1 6.0 3.2 BT-04 18,518 40 9,141 7,648 0 1,690 0.2 49.4 41.3 0.0 9.1 Berta BT-05 18,419 0 8,771 9,454 0 194 0.0 47.6 51.3 0.0 1.1 BT-06 34,521 0 3,150 25,222 0 6,149 0.0 9.1 73.1 0.0 17.8 BT-07 60,806 0 23,749 32,988 542 3,526 0.0 39.1 54.3 0.9 5.8 subtotal 228,025 92 76,968 128,420 6,006 16,538 0.0 33.8 56.3 2.6 7.3 Lower LC-01 12,429 0 339 11,366 196 528 0.0 2.7 91.4 1.6 4.3 A -105 A Coruh LC-02 36,421 0 4,819 29,100 1,298 1,203 0.0 13.2 79.9 3.6 3.3 LC-03 36,370 24 7,340 26,231 344 2,431 0.1 20.2 72.1 0.9 6.7 LC-04 21,004 75 1,995 18,769 0 165 0.4 9.5 89.4 0.0 0.8 LC-05 16,135 0 2,091 13,407 273 364 0.0 13.0 83.1 1.7 2.3 LC-06 30,168 0 3,850 25,354 0 965 0.0 12.8 84.0 0.0 3.2 LC-07 23,939 0 2,267 19,682 0 1,990 0.0 9.5 82.2 0.0 8.3 subtotal 176,466 99 22,701 143,908 2,111 7,646 0.1 12.9 81.6 1.2 4.3 Middle MC-01 24,369 99 4,666 14,979 21 4,605 0.4 19.1 61.5 0.1 18.9 Coruh MC-02 28,462 0 5,121 18,688 4,554 99 0.0 18.0 65.7 16.0 0.3 MC-03 21,554 249 4,182 13,992 871 2,261 1.2 19.4 64.9 4.0 10.5 MC-04 18,197 406 2,871 8,699 1,258 4,963 2.2 15.8 47.8 6.9 27.3 MC-05 23,778 182 1,372 17,926 359 3,939 0.8 5.8 75.4 1.5 16.6 MC-06 26,156 0 7,543 13,597 0 5,015 0.0 28.8 52.0 0.0 19.2 MC-07 16,524 0 7,783 2,739 0 6,002 0.0 47.1 16.6 0.0 36.3 MC-08 31,757 34 6,622 18,463 477 6,160 0.1 20.9 58.1 1.5 19.4 MC-09 24,348 0 2,260 16,110 2,304 3,674 0.0 9.3 66.2 9.5 15.1 MC-10 44,406 0 4,373 32,641 2,226 5,167 0.0 9.8 73.5 5.0 11.6
subtotal 259,552 969 46,793 157,834 12,070 41,886 0.4 18.0 60.8 4.7 16.1 Oltu OL-01 27,625 262 14,239 12,210 0 914 0.9 51.5 44.2 0.0 3.3 OL-02 40,771 1,369 10,658 17,949 6,500 4,295 3.4 26.1 44.0 15.9 10.5 OL-03 44,829 1,379 10,401 19,515 12,484 1,049 3.1 23.2 43.5 27.8 2.3 OL-04 38,512 1,866 4,474 22,473 8,182 1,517 4.8 11.6 58.4 21.2 3.9 OL-05 26,451 9 9,016 14,020 0 3,406 0.0 34.1 53.0 0.0 12.9 OL-06 25,079 0 4,652 10,980 7,635 1,811 0.0 18.6 43.8 30.4 7.2 OL-07 45,641 1,619 13,773 12,753 15,406 2,090 3.5 30.2 27.9 33.8 4.6 OL-08 19,680 0 6,687 9,767 167 3,060 0.0 34.0 49.6 0.8 15.5 OL-09 49,201 227 23,947 21,230 644 3,153 0.5 48.7 43.2 1.3 6.4 OL-10 18,584 914 5,423 11,044 0 1,203 4.9 29.2 59.4 0.0 6.5 OL-11 45,779 0 16,353 18,320 8,355 2,751 0.0 35.7 40.0 18.3 6.0 OL-12 37,312 15 10,057 7,603 8,057 11,580 0.0 27.0 20.4 21.6 31.0 OL-13 13,403 122 3,757 4,635 717 4,172 0.9 28.0 34.6 5.4 31.1 OL-14 17,789 0 816 15,499 3 1,470 0.0 4.6 87.1 0.0 8.3
A - 106 OL-15 32,989 534 1,626 26,286 1,705 2,838 1.6 4.9 79.7 5.2 8.6 OL-16 22,677 236 1,527 20,492 0 422 1.0 6.7 90.4 0.0 1.9 subtotal 506,322 8,553 137,406 244,775 69,856 45,733 1.7 27.1 48.3 13.8 9.0 TR-01 38,331 347 10,033 9,458 15,941 2,552 0.9 26.2 24.7 41.6 6.7 TR-02 34,876 866 15,139 11,632 4,412 2,827 2.5 43.4 33.4 12.6 8.1 TR-03 29,091 1,200 11,078 8,109 8,529 176 4.1 38.1 27.9 29.3 0.6 Tortum TR-04 38,387 1,701 9,331 6,563 19,359 1,432 4.4 24.3 17.1 50.4 3.7 TR-05 31,519 183 5,557 14,771 8,467 2,540 0.6 17.6 46.9 26.9 8.1 TR-06 30,684 6 6,118 11,164 12,217 1,179 0.0 19.9 36.4 39.8 3.8 subtotal 202,889 4,303 57,255 61,698 68,926 10,707 2.1 28.2 30.4 34.0 5.3 Upper UC-01 51,919 2,768 12,653 19,850 16,224 424 5.3 24.4 38.2 31.2 0.8 Coruh UC-02 41,129 843 6,413 17,792 12,182 3,899 2.0 15.6 43.3 29.6 9.5 UC-03 21,873 1,474 4,935 13,496 1,758 210 6.7 22.6 61.7 8.0 1.0 UC-04 44,098 1,359 6,521 24,194 4,281 7,743 3.1 14.8 54.9 9.7 17.6 UC-05 24,038 1,688 2,554 19,242 0 554 7.0 10.6 80.0 0.0 2.3 UC-06 21,220 2,774 11,542 6,706 0 198 13.1 54.4 31.6 0.0 0.9 UC-07 79,695 13,766 18,896 45,267 961 805 17.3 23.7 56.8 1.2 1.0 UC-08 80,402 9,991 30,832 34,011 4,318 1,250 12.4 38.3 42.3 5.4 1.6
UC-09 42,224 4,550 9,411 17,311 10,059 893 10.8 22.3 41.0 23.8 2.1 UC-10 19,064 211 4,404 5,598 7,489 1,363 1.1 23.1 29.4 39.3 7.1 UC-11 28,316 2,043 8,913 16,510 137 712 7.2 31.5 58.3 0.5 2.5 UC-12 20,439 82 3,335 15,496 1,284 242 0.4 16.3 75.8 6.3 1.2 UC-13 27,617 2 5,116 11,578 10,218 702 0.0 18.5 41.9 37.0 2.5 UC-14 31,167 0 15,827 10,678 1,489 3,174 0.0 50.8 34.3 4.8 10.2 UC-15 46,224 17,091 3,323 14,005 359 11,446 37.0 7.2 30.3 0.8 24.8 UC-16 33,122 4,239 11,454 10,947 0 6,482 12.8 34.6 33.1 0.0 19.6 UC-17 38,623 0 14,989 16,858 0 6,776 0.0 38.8 43.6 0.0 17.5 subtotal 651,170 62,880 171,120 299,538 70,760 46,873 9.7 26.3 46.0 10.9 7.2
Totals 2,024,424 76,897 512,243 1,036,174 229,729 169,382 3.8 25.3 51.2 11.3 8.4 Source: GDRS data manipulated by the Study GIS
A - 107
B. Forest Resources and Forest Management
CONTENTS
B.1 FOREST AND FORESTRY IN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY B.1.1 Outline of Forest and Forestry B- 1 B.1.2 Forest Management Program and Achievements B- 3 B.1.3 Forest Classification B- 9
B.2 PRESENT SITUATION OF THE STUDY AREA B.2.1 Natural Conditions B-11 B.2.2 River and Watershed B-26 B.2.3 Forestry B-43 B.2.4 Freshwater Fisheries B-69 B.2.5 Tourism B-72
B.3 IDENTIFYING CORE ISSUES B.3.1 Watershed Problems and their Causes B-74 B.3.2 Impeding Factors for Forestry B-74 B.3.3 Impeding Factors for Freshwater Fisheries B-76 B.3.4 Impeding Factors for Tourism B-77
B.4 BASIC CONCEPTS AND PROPOSED ACTIVITIES B.4.1 Basic Concepts of Rehabilitation and Management of Natural Resources B-78 B.4.2 Proposed Activities B-80 B.4.3 Unit Cost B-88 B.4.4 Proposed relevant Activities B-89 B.4.5 Freshwater fisheries B-89 B.4.6 Tourism B-89
B.5 WATERSHED REHABILITATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR SELECTED MICRO CATCHMENTS B.5.1 The Micro-Catchment BT-04 Rehabilitation and Management Project B-90 B.5.2 The Micro-Catchment MC-03 Rehabilitation and Management Project B-95 B.5.3 The Micro-Catchment TR-06 Rehabilitation and Management Project B-100 B.5.4 The Micro-Catchment UC-14 Rehabilitation and Management Project B-105 B.5.5 The Micro-Catchment UC-03 Rehabilitation and Management Project B-110 B.5.6 The Micro-Catchment OL-04 Rehabilitation and Management Project B-114 B.5.7 Proposed Activities Expenditure for Rehabilitation and Management of Natural Resources B-119
B.APPENDIX
B.1 FOREST AND FORESTRY IN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
B.1.1 Outline of Forest and Forestry
B.1.1.1 Outline of Forest
Forests cover roughly 27% of Turkey’s land area and have significant economic, environmental and cultural functions. About 15% of Turkey’s population lives in forest villages or neighboring villages where forest resources make an essential contribution to villagers and their domestic livestock.
Table B.1.1-1 Land Classification Area ha % Total area 77,945,000 100.0% Inland waters (Lakes,Rivers) 1,215,400 1.6% Land 76,729,800 98.4% Forest and other 20,763,247 26.6% wooded land Other land 55,966,553 71.8% source ; Ministry of Forestry, 1991
Turkish forests also embraces great diversity of flora of economic importance, including various medical, aromatic, industrial and ornamental plants; and provide the major habitats for most species of fauna.
Turkish forests also play a key role in watershed conservation, soil erosion control and flood control, that are issues of major importance in Turkey.
B.1.1.2 State Forestry Organization
The State forestry organization is represented by the Ministry of Forestry (MOF), which is responsible for the protection, management and utilization of the all state forests, accounting for over 99 % of the forest lands in Turkey.
The MOF is composed of a Headquarter Organization and four general directorates at the central level. The Field level consists of regional forest directorates, regional directorates of the ministry and general directorates and their sub-units, forestry research directorates, Forest Seeds and Trees Improvement Institute and Forest Soil Laboratories.
The main unit of the headquarters is the Research Planning and Coordination Board, responsible for planning, supervising and coordinating all activities of the ministry. The four general directorates of the central level are: General Directorate of Forestry (OGM), General Directorate of Afforestation and Erosion Control (AGM), General Directorate of National Parks, Game and Wildlife (MPG), and General Directorate of Forest Village Relations (ORKOY).
B - 1 These General Directorates are responsible for planning, coordinating, supervising and developing the forestry programs and implementations in their respective fields.
Forest management plans prepared and implemented by OGM aim principally at conservation of the existing forest resources and at development of forest tree vegetation (i.e. improving wood growing stock, age and diameter class distribution, and wood quality) and adequate wood production. Forest inventories, with its intension concentrated exclusively on trees, provide insufficient attention to other resources and function of forests.
The AGM has the primary responsibility for afforestation of all classes of land, particularly eroded or degraded forest areas, and also is responsible for the prevention of soil erosion. During the period of 1995 to 1999, approximately 1,689,000 ha of afforestation was accomplished, virtually all of this since 1963, but the annual rate of afforestation slowed down due to funding limitations.
However, after the “National Afforestation and Erosion Control Mobilization Law” was passed in 1995, the MOF at that time has stated an aim to increase the rate of afforestation to 300,000 ha yearly.
Table B.1.1-2 Forest activities Activities (ha) Number of seedling years Artificial Natural Establishment of Afforestation Erosion control Range improve production regreneration regeneration coppice forest (100,000 1995 24,257 6,114 3,455 22,870 23,661 12,808 192 1996 37,927 26,329 3,834 23,079 20,586 11,588 270 1997 32,031 26,124 3,120 34,200 19,391 5,573 242 1998 25,959 29,430 2,885 13,502 13,915 10,274 195 1999 11,529 22,571 4,096 21,263 13,103 11,048 112 source ; Ministry of Forest, General Directrate of Forestry
“The National Parks Law No: 2873” provides for a country wide diffusion of services for the national parks, nature parks, natural monuments and wildlife reserve areas beyond the overall forestry system. Although sites can be found all over the country, the majority of these are found in the western and northern regions of the Turkey. All these activities have been and are being undertaken by MPG. Table B.1.1-3 Forest protection status Forest and other Items Total area (ha) Volume (m3) wooded land (ha) National parks 630,247 298,925 26,159,323 Managed m ainly for Nature reserve 77,618 22,498 3,419,562 science, Nature parks 31,188 15,326 1,182,185 wilderness, eco-system, Natural monument 333 11 - history, culture, recreation sub-total 739,386 336,760 30,761,070 Conservation forests 403,344 210,192 8,245,401 M anaged mainly for soil Forests characterised as 3,185,684 3,185,684 122,259,214 and water protection conservation forests sub-total 3,589,028 3,395,876 130,504,615 TOTAL 4,328,414 3,732,636 161,265,685 source ; Ministry of Forestry, 1999 B - 2 An estimated population of 7.2 million people lives in and around forest areas. As far as it is recognized by Government, these people do not benefit from adequate development services and their efforts to sustain their livelihoods is often at the cost of serious resource degradation. As a consequence of harsh conditions in forest areas, and partly as a result of the weakness of efforts to provide development services, out- migration from forest areas is severe and in some means propels the poverty of the remaining population. The primary response of the government to these problems has been the subsidy of forest products and the field activities of ORKOY. The ORKOY was established nearly 25 years ago with the aim of minimizing frictions between foresters and forest villagers, and specifically for reducing pressures on forests by assisting villagers developing their communities. ORKOY now gives credits at concessional financial assistance for about 30 different type of income generating activities, such as apiculture, milking and feeding of cows and sheep, handicraft, poultry, freshwater fishery, etc., and other activities such as roofing and heating-cooking to individuals and cooperatives, provides supervision to their activities and conducts feasibility and marketing studies for new activities.
B.1.2 Forest Management Program and Achievements
B.1.2.1 Forest Law
The constitution, along with a number of related laws, addresses the sustainability of forests and the interaction between forests and the public. The Constitution states that the “protection of forests and the development of forest villages is a responsibility of the Turkish Republic.”
The Ministry of Forestry was established on July 8, 1991, by Decree No.4112, Law No.3800 for the establishment of the Ministry of Forestry.
B.1.2.2 Planning Activities in the Forestry Sector
Different plans and projects that were prepared and implemented for different purposes in the forestry sector are briefly explained in the following.
Forestry sector master plans (FSMP) Master Plans were prepared two times for the forestry sector. The first plan prepared in 1972 covered the period of 1973 – 1995. The second plan that was prepared in 1982 with further development and revised data and figures covered 1990 – 2009 period. These plans provided detailed information about forest policies, long term targets, supply demand estimates for wood and non-wood products, present and future targets for various forestry activities, revenue, investment and other expenditure estimates.
Integrated forest region plans Integrated regional forestry plans were prepared and implemented for 24 forest region
B - 3 directorates (forest conservancy area) during 1975-1992 periods. These plans provided implementation targets, input and budget requirement estimates, production targets and revenue estimates, for all kinds of forestry activities and programs (production, protection, reforestation, afforestation, management and silviculture, national parks, protected areas, and recreation activities) with the exception of forest village relations at the regional basis with plan periods corresponding to the five year development plan periods. Their implementations continued during 1978-1992. After this date, due to different reasons and constraints, preparation of new plans was stopped and instead of them, preparation and implementation of annual projects (implementation projects) for the main forestry programs (i.e. Forest Protection and Management Project, Reforestation Project, Erosion Control Project, National Parks Project, Forest Recreation Areas Project, Forest Village Relations Project, Forest Research Project, Foreign Financed Projects) were started.
Integrated watershed development plans for reforestation, erosion control and range improvement activities These plans were prepared for 457 main watershed areas during 1971-1984 and provided information about the ecological and socio-economic conditions, potential areas and implementation targets for reforestation, afforestation, erosion control and range improvement activities to be carried out by the State forestry sector. They also provided evaluation of different activities as regards to different criteria (B/C ratio, NPV, IRR, impacts on employment creation and foreign exchange saving). These plans also provided information about the breakdown of the potential reforestation sites according to social conflict categories.
Regional plans for the nursery production, reforestation, erosion control and range improvement activities These plans were prepared during 1978-1981 and provided information about implementation targets, input and budget requirements and revenue estimates for different seed and nursery production, reforestation, afforestation, erosion control and range improvement activities to be carried out by the General Directorate of Afforestation and Erosion Control during the plan period corresponding to the five year development plan.
District level forest village development plans These plans were prepared during 1974-1984 for 532 districts (administrative) in forest regions. They provided detailed information about socio-economic conditions and problems, potential forest village development activities for improving village income and living conditions that should improve the relations between forest organizations and village communities and consequently should help elimination of the conflicts preventing efficient conservation, development and management of forest resources.
National park and protected area plans According to the National Parks Law No. 2837, preparation of a master (management) plan
B - 4 for each national park or other protected area is compulsory, and without such plan, no action for any construction or installation on site neither by the state nor by the local people should permitted. Plans should provide detailed information about ecological conditions, natural and cultural values of the area, principles and development guidelines as well as targets for conservation and utilization activities in different zones of the site. Reconstruction and development plans are also to be prepared for providing detailed guidelines and provisions for all kinds of building and installation establishments by the state or local communities.
Forest management plans Forest management plans have been conventionally considered as the most basic planning documents for Turkish Forestry. They are prepared mostly for the forest chief area which is the lowest level of field unit of GDF. Forest management plans are prepared by the forest management planning teams (FMPT) of GDF that work under the Forest Management and Planning Department. Depending on the forest type (high forest or coppice forest) plan periods cover 10-20 years. Preparation of the first plans for the forests of the whole country was started in 1963 and completed in 1972. Preparation of the second stage, which was the renewing of plans was started in 1974 and have been completed up to approximately for 18,300,000 ha of forest area at the end of 1996. During recent years, preparation of some management plans have been contracted to private sectors (i.e. around 292,000 ha in 1997) and this implementation is expected to continue increasingly during the coming period. Under the present system, surveys, measurements and data collection are carried out by FMPTs, during a 6-7 month (in summer and spring) field work. Office work, calculations and writing of plans are done in Ankara during the remaining period of the term. Topographic map of 1/25,000, aerial photographs and forest stand maps, prepared by Forest Mapping and Photogrammetry Directorate are utilized for field and office works. Some special computer software have been developed and introduced in planning activities during recent years. Efforts are continuing for further development of adequate computerized data information and management planning system.
Forest management plans provide detailed inventories for forest tree vegetation, growing stock and increment conditions, division of the plan area forests between management classes, in regeneration and maintenance blocks, allowable cut and production yield quantities by compartments in different years, designation of the areas for reforestation and conservation purposes. They are plans if anything emphasizing on regeneration, forest structure (age and diameter class distribution) development, wood production and utilization aspects. As increasingly recognized during recent years, attention on demands and potentials for protective and environmental, biodiversity and socio-economic aspects are inadequate and require urgent development. With this understanding, some new initiatives have been started recently by GDF for the development of forest management system in Turkey.
The preliminary results of the partially completed renewed management plans during 1975-1995 have been recently evaluated. Forest inventory results obtained from these
B - 5 evaluations provided and compared with the previous plans (prepared during 1963-1972) results in Table B.1.2-1 to B.1.2-4.
Table B.1.2-1 Distribution of forest lands by management classes Proportion (%) to Forest land (ha) Forest area Country area Management classes 1963-1972 1973-1995 63-72 73-95 63-72 73-95 Inventory Inventory invent. invent. invent. invent. Productive high forest 6,176,899 7,729,635 30.60 37.60 7.9 9.9 Degraded high forest 4,757,708 5,580,894 23.50 27.15 6.1 7.1 Productive coppice 2,679,558 2,563,950 13.30 12.47 3.4 3.0 Degraded coppice 6,585,131 4,684,691 32.60 22.79 8.5 6.0 Total 20,199,296 20,559,170 100.00 100.00 25.9 26.0 Source: MOF and Forest Management Planning Department of GDF
Table B.1.2-2 Distribution of growing stock by management classes Proportion to total Standing stock (m3-stere) Management class growing stock (%) 63-72 Inventory 73-95 Inventory 63-72 Inv. 73-95 Inv. Productive high forest 758,732,197 960,002,573 93.3 94.8 (m3) Degraded high forest(m3) 54,349,847 60,614,361 6.7 5.2 Productive coppice 117,734,424 112,797,746 72.1 84.9 (stere) Degraded coppice (stere) 45,505,717 38,264,255 27.9 15.1 Total m3 813,082,044 1,020,616,934 100.0 100.0 Total stere 163,240,717 151,062,001 100.0 100.0 Source: MOF and Forest Management Planning Department of GDF
Table B.1.2-3 Distribution of increment by management classes Proportion to total Total annual increment (m3/stere) Management class increment (%) 63-72 Inventory 73-95 Inventory 63-72 Inv. 73-95 Inv. Productive high forest 20,791,672 24,633,151 93.9 94.8 (m3) Degraded high forest(m3) 1,343,744 1,342,723 6.1 5.2 Productive coppice 6,417,596 6,470,326 81.2 84.9 (stere) Degraded coppice (stere) 1,486,123 1,148,553 18.8 15.1 Total m3 22,135,416 25,975,874 100.0 100.0 Total stere 7,903,719 7,618,879 100.0 100.0 Source: MOF and Forest Management Planning and Department of GDF
Table B.1.2-4 Current annual allowable cut (m3) Conifers Non-conifers Total Yield class 63-72 Inv. 73-95 Inv. 63-72 Inv. 73-95 Inv. 63-72 Inv. 73-95 Inv. Selective 749,817 398,869 143,966 38,928 893,783 437,797 Regeneration 5,121,879 6,377,327 1,958,874 2,076,388 7,080,753 8,453,715 Tending 5,727,861 2,571,388 2,220,187 852,372 7,948,048 3,423,760 Cleaning 515,821 100,383 381,473 35,562 897,294 135,945 12,115,378 9,447,967 4,704,500 3,003,250 16,819,878 12,451,217 Total for coppice forests 7,946,743 8,888,547 Source: MOF and Forest Management Planning and Department of GDF
These comparisons show an increase of 358,985 ha in the forest area and some increase in the
B - 6 growing stock and increment in high forests. These differences may be the result of : Afforestation sites established on forest openings (on the lands considered non-forest area); invasion of some abandoned farmlands by natural regeneration (as a result of rapid out-migration from forest villages); some mistakes made in previous inventories which were prepared in shorter times using less developed techniques; and different methods implemented during the two inventories (i.e. in the 1963 – 1972 inventory, only the trees determined by tele-relascop were measured on the sample plot areas, whereas in the new inventories all trees on the sample plots were measured).
However, considering the general opinion about the fact that the deforestation and degradation is a continuing process on large areas of the Turkish forests, careful analysis, interpretation and discussion of the results are urgently needed.
Forestry sector special expertise commission reports for five year development plans Special expertise commission (SEC) reports are prepared to assist in the preparation of the five year development plans started by the State Planning Organization every five years.
The policies concerning Forestry in the 8th Five Year Development Plan, 2001-2005 is summarized as follows.
① Within the ecosystem approach and in line with the principle of sustainability, multi-purpose utilization, participation, specialization, biological diversity, protection of water and wild life and development of social stability, forests shall be exploited, protected and improved by taking into consideration the realities of forest site conditions, interdependent among sectors. Production and carrying capacity, forest health, landscape, ecotourism, productivity, pollution, fire, insects, landslide, snow, avalanche, flood, frost and drought and ergonomic factors. ② In order to ensure safety of areas, effectiveness in protection, observance of public interest and efficiency of investments within the forest regime, cadastral demarcation works shall be intensified by taking into consideration protection of the integrity of forest areas, giving priority to the regeneration and afforestation areas. ③ Nature Protection Areas, National Parks and similar Protected Areas shall be improved and expanded with a view to protecting biological diversity, water and wild life, cultural and aesthetic values, enabling studies on undiscovered benefits of the forests, preventing soil erosion, landslide and avalanche, and improving eco-tourism. Within these activities, it will be the main principle that ecosystems shall have adequate size for protecting the values of ecosystem. ④ Forest, pasture and water management plans shall be rearranged in line with sustainable forest management principles by taking into account social requirements, various factors of the ecosystem, site inventory including wood and non-wood products and services, management purposes, protected areas, endangered wild life
B - 7 and flora. Regeneration activities shall be carried out regularly in accordance with silviculture plans by taking into consideration natural tree species. ⑤ Protection of soil, fauna and flora and the quality of water shall be a main principle in all the activities such as buildings, facilities, roads, mining, installation of electricity mains and similar construction works and wood production to be carried out by various organizations. Moreover, necessary rearrangements shall be carried out, by improving standards. ⑥ In order to protect the environment in forest regions and to prevent unfeasible investments and sink-cost, importance shall be attached to road constructions at technical standards, whereby the improvement of current roads shall have priority. Within the 8th Plan period new roads of 5 thousand km-length will be constructed. ⑦ It is expected that within the Plan period afforestation works covering an area of 300 thousand hectares, as well as 175 thousand hectares of soil protection and 30 thousands hectares of pasture improvement works will be carried out in a manner not to create biologically deserted environment and in order to prevent such natural disasters as deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, flood, landslide and avalanche, to contribute to improvement of the global carbon balance, to meet wood requirement and to improve the socio-economic condition of the villagers. Regarding these works, special importance shall be given to fast growing tree species and forest maintenance works shall not be neglected nor delayed. ⑧ Social and agricultural forestry activities, consisting of raising oaks, acacia, and pines and other species providing multi faced benefits and the production of medical, aromatic and decoration plants shall be improved with the aim of improving the prosperity of the forest villagers. The intentions of legal and real persons to establish private forests shall be encouraged. ⑨ In regard of prevention of and combating against forest fires, alongside with taking silvicultural measures, establishing fire safety roads and fire breaks and implementing such measures as controlled burning, activities on the employment of fire teams equipped with modern tools, increase of using helicopters and aeroplanes and especially water sprinkler trucks, improvement of early warning and transport systems, and education and enlightenment of the public shall be made more efficient. Regarding the control of harmful insects and diseases, biological methods shall be emphasized.. ⑩ In order to ensure forestry activities to be carried out in sound and safe environment and conditions, necessary ergonomic arrangements, related with the man-work-environment system from preventive clothes to mechanization and working environment, shall be realized . Furthermore, standards shall be improved , pursued and on the job inspection is to be carried out. ⑪ Forestry research units and studies shall be organized, within the framework of global integration, including land utilization, biological diversity, pollution, green house effects, acid rains, endangered aquatic species and wild life, and production and carrying capacity of the area, producing the value added and other economic data. In this connection, cooperation among the researchers, implementing units,
B - 8 non-governmental organization and forest villagers shall be sought. ⑫ Regarding all forestry activities, especially the preparation of management plans, the controlling of forest fires, insect and diseases and the enforcement of cadastral work, importance shall be given on the utilization of remote control methods from the aspect of health and efficiency. ⑬ The Forest Law No 6831 shall be rearranged considering environmental protection , public interest, integrity of the ecosystem and protection of wild life.
B.1.3 Forest Classification
According to Turkish Forest Management Plan, forest areas are classified into two groups in terms of appearance: High Forest and Coppice Forest. High Forest areas accounts for 67% of the forests in the whole area. In the High Forests, coniferous forests are dominant with the share of 71 %, followed by deciduous forestｓ with 19% and mixed forestｓ with 10%.
Table B.1.3-1 Forestry Area and Forest Classification unit; ha Quality Coniferous Forest Deciduous Forest Mixed Forest High Forest Coppice Forest Forestry Land Normal Forest 5,955,120 1,414,876 632,859 8,002,855 2,545,132 10,547,987 Degraded Forest 3,937,335 1,178,461 720,525 5,836,321 4,318,814 10,155,135 Total 9,892,455 2,593,337 1,353,384 13,839,176 6,863,946 20,703,122 source ; Ministry of Forestry, 1997
Table B.1.3-2 Standing Stock of every Forest Classification
Coniferous Forest Deciduous Forest High Forest Coppice Forest Quality Total (㎥) ㎥/ha Total (㎥) ㎥/ha Total (㎥) ㎥/ha Total (㎥) ㎥/ha Normal Forest 720,990,975 121.1 272,663,862 192.7 993,654,837 124.2 Degraded 45,150,167 11.5 16,470,485 14.0 61,620,652 10.6 Forest Total 766,141,142 77.4 289,134,347 111.5 1,055,275,489 76.3 148,320,399 21.6 source; Ministry of Forest, 1997
Table B.1.3-3 Annual Growing Stock of every Forest Classification
Coniferous Forest Deciduous Forest High Forest Coppice Forest Quality Total (㎥) ㎥/ha Total (㎥) ㎥/ha Total (㎥) ㎥/ha Total (㎥) ㎥/ha Normal Forest 18,998,826 3.2 6,534,653 4.6 25,533,479 3.2 Degraded 954,895 0.2 370,897 0.3 1,325,792 0.2 Forest Total 19,953,721 2.0 6,905,550 2.7 26,859,271 1.9 7,439,696 1.1 source; Ministry of Forest, 1997
The main forest tree species seen in the high forests are scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris), spruce (Picea orientalis), fir (Abies sp.), and beech (Fagus orientalis) for coniferous, and alder (Alnus sp.) and oak (Quercus sp.) for broad-leaved, respectively. On the other hand, the coppice forests, which represents one third of the forest area, are predominated by oak.
B - 9 Table B.1.3-4 Main Forest tree species
Classification Major trees High forest(ha) Coppice(ha) Total (ha) Pinus sp. 5,540,992 1,776 5,542,768 Abies sp. 463,526 150 463,676 Cedrus sp. 223,918 0 223,918 Picea orientalis 185,331 0 185,331 Juniperus sp. 80,146 1,493 81,639 Coniferous Pinus maritima 55,435 0 55,435 Pinus radiata 2,429 0 2,429 Pseudotsuga menziesii 345 0 345 Other conifers 8,074 1 8,075 sub-total 6,560,196 3,420 6,563,616 Fagus sp. 1,060,976 1,405 1,062,381 Qurcus sp. 350,329 1,524,011 1,874,340 Castanea sp. 56,944 15,456 72,400 Alnus sp. 57,684 83 57,767 Deciduous Carpinus sp. 58,844 4,438 63,282 Fraxinus sp. 8,098 2,123 10,221 Eucalyptus sp. 83,897 235,831 319,728 Other non-conifers 785 3,048 3,833 sub-total 1,677,557 1,786,395 3,463,952 TOTAL 8,237,753 1,789,815 10,027,568 source : Ministry of Forestry, 1999
The High Forests and Coppice Forests are further classified into “Normal Forests (productive)” and “Degraded Forests (unproductive forest)” respectively by crown density (canopy density). The forests with 0-10% of crown density are regarded “Degraded” and that of 11-100% is defined as “Normal”. Based on this definition, some 51% of the forest areas are classified as degraded and unproductive.
B - 10 B.2 PRESENT SITUATION OF THE STUDY AREA
B.2.1 Natural conditions
B.2.1.1 Topography and Geology
The Study area is located between the Northern Anatolian Mountains and the Allahuekber Mountains. The Northern Anatolian Mountains, extends roughly in and East-West direction along Black Sea, with the Allahuekber Mountains running parallel in the inland part of the Northern Anatolian mountains. There is great altitudinal difference in the Study area. The Study area can be largely divided into 2 (two) parts; the plateau area with the altitude approximately 500~1000m, and the mountainous area exceeding 2000m. The lowest altitude point is about 550m, and the highest is the Kaskar Mountain, which is 3397m. More than 30% of the Study area has steep slopes of over 30% slant. And more than 50% of the area is even steeper with the slant exceeding 30%, mainly distributing in the Lower and Middle part of Coruh river.
Coruh river has its rise in the west of Bayburt, and streams almost East – North direction and flows into the Black Sea via Georgia. The total extension of Coruh river within Turkey is 442km out of the total extension of 466km. Geological conditions in the Study area are widely covered with volcanic rocks, and sedimentary and metamorphic rocks are also seen. Most widely distributed is Andesite, followed by Upper Cretaceous Volcanic facies and Eocene Volcanic facies.
The following impediment factors exist upon topographical and geological conditions in relation to plant growth.
1. Rain water do not infiltrate in the steep slope easily. 2. Organic matters such as fallen leaves do not hold on easily in the steep slope. 3. Seeds are hard to hold on in the steep slope, and the invasion and settling of the vegetation are difficult. 4. In a steep slope, a surface soil will not settled and transfer easily in a few trigger. 5. A root does not expand in the place where a soil layer is insufficient by bedrock of the unweathering has been exposed. Plants easily receive arid damage in such a place.
1-4 is a problem of the stability of the soil on slope soil, and 5 can be said to be various characters of the soil and problem of the quantity of the soil.
B - 11 Relation with vegetation and slope inclination can be roughly described as follows.
0%～30% Soil erosion is comparatively little at an incline of this range, because if it is possible to cover a slope completely with the tree grasses. Moreover, the vegetation is often naturally restored if given sufficient moisture. The restorations of plant community by trees are possible under usual natural condition. 30%～60% The plant community can be restored under natural conditions. However, the possibility of soil erosion is present, and the use soil erosion prevention countermeasures are necessary. 60%~100% The plant community by shrub can be restored with foundation of seedling and planting works are used together. 100% or more The low-growing plant community by grass or/and shrub can be restored. But foundation of seedling and planting works with solid structure is necessary for prevention of possible soil erosion in the future
Judging from topographical and geological conditions in the Study area stated above, it may be said that the creation of plant community by only tree planting is difficult in most places of the Study area. The usage of trees in combination with foundation of seedling and planting works or/and grasses might be necessary.
B - 12 B - 13 B - 14
B.2.1.2 Soil
Brown forest soil is widely distributed in Lower and Middle Coruh river basin, while Brown soil is mainly distributed in Upper Coruh river basin and Oltu river basin. Bazaltic soil is seen in the mountainous site.
The most common soil in the Study area are Bazaltic soil, Brown forest soil, Brown soil, Chestnut soil, and Mountain pasture soil and soil synthesized from them. These soils account for almost 77% of the whole river basin.
The physical and chemical data of these soils were not able to acquire, but they receiving strong an influence of arid climate, production of the plants is a little.
Therefore, it is thought that organic matters on the soil surface are little and growing condition for plants on these soils is severe.
B - 15
B - 16
B.2.1.3 Climate
The Lower Coruh river basin, belonging to Mediterranean climate, shows high temperature and dryness in summer, and warm in winter.
The others area in the Study area show the characteristics of the Steppe climate, such as large seasonal and daily temperature differences and small amounts of precipitation.
Table B.2.1-1 shows monthly average temperatures in the Study area. Monthly average temperature in Artvin in Lower Coruh river basin is 12.2 oC, and 15.0 oC in Yusufeli in Middle Coruh river basin. On the other hand monthly average temperatures in Bayburt in Upper Coruh river basin, Tortum river basin and Oltu river basin are 6.5oC, 8.3oC and 6.5orespectively.
The annual changes of the maximum temperatures in major cities of the Study Area shown in Table B.2.1-1, indicates the severe temperature variances in the basins of Tortum and Oltu river.
Table B.2.1-1 Monthly Average Temperatures in the Study Area (unit: oC) Artvin Erzurum Bayburt Yusufeli Tortum Oltu January 2.7 -8.3 -7.1 3.8 -3.4 -1.7 February 3.8 -7.0 -5.4 5.2 -2.2 -1.6 March 7.1 -3.0 -3.0 10.0 1.6 -4.0 April 12.0 5.1 6.8 14.8 7.2 10.3 May 15.9 10.9 11.6 19.3 12.4 14.9 June 18.6 15.0 15.0 23.4 16.1 18.3 July 20.5 19.1 18.8 26.0 19.6 22.0 August 20.6 19.6 18.4 26.3 19.5 22.8 September 17.9 14.9 14.5 21.7 15.3 16.9 October 13.8 8.6 8.8 14.6 9.5 11.3 November9.22.02.69.55.0 6.1 December 4.6 -5.1 -3.4 4.8 -0.6 0.4 Annual avera 12.2 6.0 6.5 15.0 8.3 10.2 1929-1970 1929-1970 42 years 1954-1970 5years Note: Elevations of each meteorological station are as follows: Artvin: 628m, Erzurum: 1758m, Bayburt: 1584m, Yusufeli: 611m, Tortum: 1550m and Oltu: 1275 Source: Reports on Soil Fertility and Fertilizer Requirement in the Study Area Province, : General Directorate of Rural Services : Statistical Year Book of Turkey 2001(Erzurum ) : General Directorate of Forestry (Artvin, Eruzurum)
Artvin Erzurum Bayburt Yusufeli Tortum Oltu Maximum temp. (oC) 25.9 34.0 26.7 42.5 35.4 36.6 o Minimum temp. ( C) -0.4 -30.1 -11.4 ╶ -20.8 -20.1
Figure B.2.1-1 shows the annual temperature changes in each city. The tendency of temperature variation in each city draws similar curves.
B - 17
Figure B.2.1-1 Change of Monthly Average Temperatures in the Study Area
Monthly Average Temperatures
30.0 25.0
20.0 Artvin 15.0 Erzurum 10.0 Bayburt 5.0 Yusufeli Temp.(C) 0.0 Tortum Oltu -5.0 y h l y st r r pri Jul be be A May June tober -10.0Januar ebruary Marc Augu F eptem Oc ovem S N December -15.0 Month
Table B.2.1-2 shows monthly average humidity in the Study area. The average humidity in Artvin tends to rise in summer season in contrast with other cities showing high values in winter season.
Table B.2.1-2 Monthly Average Humidity in the Study Area unit: % Artvin Erzurum Bayburt Tortum Oltu January 64 76 74 67 65 February 64 75 74 64 63 March62747166 54 April61656459 57 May 65 60 61 58 51 June 68 56 59 55 52 July 72 50 53 52 51 August 71 46 51 50 53 September70495251 60 October66606256 66 November 65 71 71 62 69 December 65 75 74 68 58 Annual avera 66 63 64 59 58 1929-1970 42 years 1929-1970 1954-1970 5years Note: Elevations of each meteorological station are as follows: Artvin: 628 m; Erzurum 1,758m ;Bayburt:1,584m, Tortum:1,550m and Oltu:1,275m Source: Reports on Soil Fertility and Fertilizer Requirement in the Study Area Province, General Directorate of Rural Services : Statistical Year Book of Turkey 2001(Erzurum )
Table B.2.1-3 shows monthly average precipitation in the Study area and Figure B.2.1-2 shows annual tendency of precipitation. The annual precipitation in Artvin is about 660mm with abound precipitation in winter and less precipitation in summer. However, the annual
B - 18
precipitation of other cities in the Study area are approximately 400mm and show tendencies of abound precipitation in summer. With regard to Yusufeli in the Middle Coruh river basin, the annual precipitation is extremely minimal, showing amounts of less than 300mm.
Table B.2.1-3 Monthly Average Precipitation in the Study Area unit: mm Artvin Erzurum Bayburt Yusufeli Tortum Oltu January 85.1 25.7 24.8 19.4 28.4 20.4 February 71.4 30.2 27.1 18.5 23.6 23.0 March55.640.036.624.139.6 27.2 April53.153.557.833.050.1 40.7 May 50.3 75.8 67.6 39.3 66.6 45.6 June 46.8 53.7 53.4 34.7 62.1 49.6 July 27.0 29.7 21.2 26.3 34.6 42.8 August 25.8 18.6 14.6 15.6 24.5 23.7 September 35.1 27.1 20.9 16.4 19.2 20.2 October55.646.739.719.032.0 28.8 November 70.0 35.9 35.0 25.0 29.8 20.8 December 87.1 23.6 27.5 24.6 24.4 19.5 Annual total 662.9 460.5 426.2 295.8 434.9 382.3 1929-1970 1929-1970 42 years 1954-1970 5years Note: Elevations of each meteorological station are as follows: Artvin: 628m, Erzurum:1758m, Bayburt: 1584m, Yusufeli: 611m, Tortum: 1550m and Oltu: 1275m Source: Reports on Soil Fertility and Fertilizer Requirement in the Study Area Province, : General Directorate of Rural Services : Statistical Year Book of Turkey 2001(Erzurum ) : General Directorate of Forestry (Artvin,Eruzurum)
Figure B.2.1-2 Change of Monthly Average Precipitation
M onthly Average Rainfall
100.0 90.0 Artvin 80.0 70.0 Erzurum 60.0 Bayburt 50.0 40.0 Yusufeli 30.0 Rainfall (mm) Rainfall Tortum 20.0 10.0 Oltu 0.0
l e t r r r r ry ry h i y n ly s e e e e a a rc pr a u u u b b b b u u a M J J g m o m n r A u e ct em e a eb M A t v c J F ep O o e S N D Month
Bare slope lands spreading out in the Study Area are particularly vulnerable to climatic effects. It is known that both extremes of air and soil temperature in bare land exceeds that of forests. Therefore, in most areas in the Study Area has very severe growth conditions for vegetation.
B - 19
Table B.2.1-4 Monthly Average Climate Data in the Study Area
Jan. Fab. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual Period Artvin Observation period: 1932-1990 Latitude: 41 11'N Longitude: 41 49'E Elevation: 628 m Average temp. (oC) 2.7 3.8 7.1 12.0 15.9 18.6 20.5 20.6 17.9 13.8 9.2 4.6 12.2 42 yrs Maximum temp. (oC) 6.2 8.2 12.4 18.0 22.0 24.2 25.5 25.9 23.7 19.5 13.6 7.9 25.9 42 yrs Minimum temp. (oC) -0.4 0.3 2.8 7.2 11.1 14.0 16.5 16.6 13.8 9.8 5.8 1.7 -0.4 42 yrs Humidity (%) 6464626165687271706665656642 yrs Rainfall (mm) 85.1 71.4 55.6 53.1 50.3 46.8 27.0 25.8 35.1 55.6 70.0 87.1 662.9 42 yrs Evaporation (mm) - - 89.4 100.5 116.0 116.8 122.0 121.4 107.9 85.0 49.6 65.9 974.5 26 yrs Sunshine hours (min) 137 187 250 352 366 407 360 413 383 273 179 120 286 6 yrs Solar rad. (cal/cm2/min) 141.7 238.1 316.7 401.3 450.1 487.7 453.8 441.8 363.8 246.9 158.9 118.7 318 6 yrs Days of frost 3.72.43.30.60.0----0.42.65.418.442 yrs Erzurum Observation period: Latitude: Longitude: Elevation:1869m Average temp. (oC) -8.3 -7.0 -3.0 5.1 10.9 15.0 19.1 19.6 14.9 8.6 2.0 -5.1 6.0 42 yrs Maximum temp. (oC) 8.0 10.6 17.8 23.5 29.6 32.2 34.0 34.0 31.4 26.0 20.7 12.3 34.0 42 yrs Minimum temp. (oC) -30.1 -27.5 -24.8 -18.5 -6.4 -3.2 1.8 1.2 -3.8 -12.0 -25.6 -28.0 -30.1 42 yrs Rainfall (mm) 25.7 30.2 40.0 53.5 75.8 53.7 29.7 18.6 27.1 46.7 35.9 23.6 460.5 42 yrs 10mm
B - 20
B.2.1.4 Vegetation
The vegetation in the Study area is roughly divided by precipitation, geographical condition and so on into three (3) types (based on “Ecoregious of Turkey”, Dr.Iberahim Atalay) . The Lower and Middle Coruh river basin (Ispir, Artvin, Savsat, Oltu, Narman, and etc.) belongs to Dry Forest-Shrub region, while the Kackar and Yalnizcan Mountain ranges are Mountain Grass region, and Bayburt, Tortum and etc. are Dry Forest-Anthropogene Steppe region.
The vegetation of Dry Forest-Shrub region has abundant vegetation communities and plant species owing to suitable humidity carried from Black Sea, sufficient solar radiation amount and topographical aspects etc. Plants having Mediterranean aspects, for instance, olive, mulberry, pomegranate and figs are distributed along in the Coruh river. In the mountainous site is seen coniferous species such as Pinus sylvestris, Pinus brutia, Abies nordmanniana, Picea orientalis and so on, furthermore, broad leaf tree (hardwood) species such as Fagus sp., Quercus sp., Alnus.sp. and so on are also seen. Afforested Poplus nigra is seen around settlements, arable areas and riversides. Several kinds of herbal vegetations are seen in the Mountain Grass region. For instance, Festuca violacea. Also, rocky site habitable herbal species are seen in the high altitude zone exceeding the altitude of 2000m.
The feature of Dry Forest-Anthropogene Steppe region is Oak forest which accompanies Juniper species to the upper part of the natural steppe zone. Widely afforested Pinus sylvestris, Quecus sp., Robinia pseudoacacia and Poplus nigra, etc. are also seen.
The Flora in Bayburt province is follows.
Turkish Name English Name Scientific Name Sarican Scotch pine Pinus sylvestris Goknar Fir Abies nortmanniana Mese Oak Quercus iberica Kavak Poplar Populus tremula Findik Hazel Corylus colurna Bogurtlen Blackberry Rubus Fruticosa Kizilagac Alder Alnus gluttinosa Ardic Juniper Juniperus sp. Isirgan Nettle Utrica dioica Yabani gul Eglantine (rosehip) Rosa canina Cayirotlari Timothy grass Germinea Kuzu kulagi Sheep's sorrel Rumex acetosa Menekse Violet Viola canina Gelincik Corn-poppy Papaver argenona Sutlegen Euphorbia Lactuca momolla Deve dikeni Creeping thistle Cirsiun arvense At kuyrugu Marestail Eknisenturn arnese Geven Goat's thorn Astra galus
The feature of the vegetation type in the Study area is shown as in the following figure.
B - 21
B - 22
B.2.1.5 Land use
Table B.2.1-5 shows land use in the Study area from 1982/84 in 2001.
Table B.2.1-5 Land use in the Study Area in 1982/84 and 2001. Unit : ha Shrub Pasture SC Year Forests & Rangeland Arable land Others Total Bushland Grassland 1982-84 111,532 20,292 44,436 35,042 16,724 228,025 Berta 2001 78,192 45,565 83,516 18,338 2,920 228,531 (33,340) 25,273 39,080 (16,704) (13,804) 506 1982-84 131,749 8,629 10,994 17,447 7,646 176,466 Lower 2001 127,035 18,757 26,739 3,759 1,814 178,104 Coruh (4,714) 10,128 15,745 (13,688) (5,832) 1,638 1982-84 121,306 40,415 42,376 13,568 41,886 259,552 Middle 2001 99,244 22,188 67,090 51,799 19,069 259,390 Coruh (22,062) (18,227) 24,714 38,231 (22,817) (162) 1982-84 95,705 57,149 239,654 66,920 46,693 506,322 Oltu 2001 70,427 69,985 253,207 71,090 37,575 502,284 (25,278) 12,836 13,553 4,170 (9,118) (4,038) 1982-84 24,582 12,500 138,130 16,946 10,731 202,889 Tortum 2001 28,829 27,328 92,387 36,000 19,311 203,855 4,247 14,828 (45,743) 19,054 8,580 966 1982-84 9,316 46,014 387,734 161,234 46,873 651,170 Upper 2001 36,500 52,695 412,282 99,853 50,912 652,242 Coruh 27,184 6,681 24,548 (61,381) 4,039 1,072 1982-84 494,191 184,999 863,326 311,155 170,752 2,024,424 Total 2001 440,227 236,518 935,221 280,839 131,601 2,024,406 (53,964) 51,519 71,895 (30,316) (39,151) (18)
Unit : % Shrub Pasture SC Year Forests & Rangeland Arable land Others Total Bushland Grassland 1982-84 48.9 8.9 19.5 15.4 7.3 100.0 Berta 2001 34.2 19.9 36.5 8.0 1.3 100.0 2001/1984 0.7 2.2 1.9 0.5 0.2 1.0 1982-84 74.7 4.9 6.2 9.9 4.3 100.0 Lower 2001 71.3 10.5 15.0 2.1 1.0 100.0 Coruh 2001/1984 1.0 2.2 2.4 0.2 0.2 1.0 1982-84 46.7 15.6 16.3 5.2 16.1 100.0 Middle 2001 38.3 8.6 25.9 20.0 7.4 100.0 Coruh 2001/1984 0.8 0.5 1.6 3.8 0.5 1.0 1982-84 18.9 11.3 47.3 13.2 9.2 100.0 Oltu 2001 14.0 13.9 50.4 14.2 7.5 100.0 2001/1984 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.0 1982-84 12.1 6.2 68.1 8.4 5.3 100.0 Tortum 2001 14.1 13.4 45.3 17.7 9.5 100.0 2001/1984 1.2 2.2 0.7 2.1 1.8 1.0 1982-84 1.4 7.1 59.5 24.8 7.2 100.0 Upper 2001 5.6 8.1 63.2 15.3 7.8 100.0 Coruh 2001/1984 3.9 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.0 1982-84 24.4 9.1 42.6 15.4 8.4 100.0 Total 2001 21.7 11.7 46.2 13.9 6.5 100.0 2001/1984 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.0
B - 23
According to the satellite photo image analysis at the time of 2001, the dominant land use of the area is pasture-rangeland-grassland (46%), followed by forest (22%), arable land (14%) and shrub-bush land (12%).
The characteristics of each SCs (sub-basin) are summarized as follows. Berta : dominated by pasture-rangeland-grassland and forests Lower Coruh : dominated by forests Middle Coruh : dominated by forests and pasture-rangeland-grassland Oltu : dominated by pasture-rangeland-grassland Tortum : dominated by pasture-rangeland-grassland Upper Coruh : dominated by pasture-rangeland-grassland
Table B.2.1-5 and Figure B.2.1-3 shows transition of landuse from 1982/84 to 2001.
The Forest areas of the Survey area decreased at the rate of about 9% in these 20 years, and pasture-rangeland-grassland increased at about 9%.
Landuse in Study Area
s er h Ot
Arable land 2001 1982/84 Landuse type Landuse
Pasture Rangeland G ra ssland b & Bushland u Shr s rest Fo 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,00 0 Acreage (ha)
Figure B.2.1-3 Transition of Landuse
The pasture-rangeland-grassland has decreased in the Tortum river basin and arable land have decreased in the Berta, Upper and Lower Coruh river basins. In contrast, forest areas in the Upper Coruh river basin has extended greatly.
It is thought that the tendency of landuse largely influenced by natural conditions such as climate, soil, and geographical and topographical conditions and magnitude of grazing.
B - 24
Table B.2.1-6 Land use in the Study Area Unit: ha District Forest area Treeless area Total Normal Degraded Severely Total Agricultu Pasture Other Total Forest Forest Degraded re land land land Forest Artvin 131,452.5 45,021.5 186,435.0 362,909.0 79,296.5 142,191.5 79,484.0 300,972.0 663,881.0 Erzurum 56,777.0 89,017.7 0.0 145,794.7 107,704.0 400,758.3 22,295.3 530,757.5 676,552.2 Bayburt 14,163.0 131,995.0 216,362.0 2,680.0 351,037.0 365,200.0 Total 188,228.5 134,039.2 186,435.0 522,866.7 318,995.5 759,311.8 104,459.3 1,182,766.5 1,705,633.2
District Other Illegal Erosion Afforestation cutting area control area impossible area Artvin 0.0 170,873.0 20,097.5 Erzurum 0.0 86,121.9 0.0 Bayburt - - - Total 0.0 256,994.9 20,097.5 Source: Forestry Regional Directorate of Artvin, Eastern Anatolia Forestry Regional Directorate in Erzurum and Bayburt Forest Enterprise
B - 25
B.2.2 River and Watershed
B.2.2.1 Watershed Classification
A watershed management in the general meaning is lead to the result of assumption as the ideal plan beforehand because of comprising all resources, economics and industry in whole watershed like TVA plan.
However, the watershed management in this study aim to the improvement of living standard level of local inhabitants centering on the revival of the forest, and it is based on thought of useful for the environmental preservation of a wide area to keep the forest in a watershed to be desirable for the preservation/cultivation of water resource and soil.
On the occasion of studying of watershed management plan, it is necessary to divide watershed for the selection of suitable area for a detail plan.
Watershed is an area that receives and keeps rainwater then flow it to the sea only through one main passage. One watershed is separated from other surrounding areas or other watershed by a topography separator in the form of peak/ridge, etc. In this survey, at first it was settled the boundary of Coruh watershed by the topographical map of 1:100,000. It is the range of the Study area. It is about 2,030,000ha.
Next, the main stream and the tributaries were divided according to the shape of the river. The main stream is Coruh river where the west side of Bayburt is made a riverhead, and Coruh river has three main branches such as Tortum, Oltu, and Berta.
The first order basin is consists of Coruh river and the basins of main tributaries become secondary order basins. Furthermore, the third order basin was divided in consideration of the landform of water catchments and the size of basin, etc.
The third order basin can have been done by dividing further about Tortum, Oltu, and the Berta tributaries. However, in case of the Coruh river when the third order basin is accurately divided same as Tortum, Oltu and Berta tributaries, these basin size becomes small too much compared with the third order basin in Tortum, Oltu, and the Berta tributaries. Then the Coruh river divided into 3 parts such as the Upper river basin, Middle river basin and Lower river basin. These river basins were expediently the secondary river basin, these basin are the first river basin under normal conditions.
It is shows the result in Table B.2.2-1 and Map.
The Coruh river basin was able to be divided into 6 Sub-basin (SC) and 63 Micro-basin (MC). Thinking as a unit of the investigation is appropriate because there is accurately
B - 26
something composed of plural valleys in the third valley.
By the way, the watershed division is prescribed as follows in Turkey. Su Hauzasi (Catchments) Alt Hauza (Sub- Catchments) :maybe 200,000-600,000 ha scale Micro Hauza (Micro-Catchments) :maybe 5,000-30,000 ha scale
B - 27
B - 28 B -
B - 29
B - 30 B -
B.2.2.2 Hydrological Conditions
Table B.2.2-2 shows the water potential and Table B.2.2-3 shows groundwater conditions in the Coruh watershed.
Table B.2.2-2 Average Annual Water Potential by River Basins in 1995
Average Average Average Average Averace annual annual annual annual annual Name of river basin precipitation volume flow flow rate yield (mm) (km2) (mm) (m3/sec) (if/sec/km2) Coruh 629.40 6.57 330.30 208.30 10.41 Turkey 642.60 189.96 225.10 226.10 8.04 *The lake areas are not included in the preicipitation area *"Turkey" weighted mean value, without "annual volume" source : General Directorates of State Hydraulic Works
Table B.2.2-3 Average Ground Water Reserve and the Amount of Ground Water Used for Various Purposes by River Basin unit : 10⁶m3year Available Total The ratio of Drinking- Name of river basin year groundwater withdrawal of groundwater using Irrigation reserve groundwater withdrawal and indusutry 1984 - 6,100 - 400 5,700 1987 - 10,100 - 4,400 5,700 1989 - 12,000 - 6,300 5,700 1991 70,000 23,260 0.33 11,860 11,400 Coruh 1992 70,000 17,560 0.25 11,860 5,700 1993 70,000 17,560 0.25 11,860 5,700 1994 71,020 18,580 0.26 12,880 5,700 1995 71,020 19,720 0.28 14,020 5,700 source : River basin statistics 1995
Figure B.2.2-1 and Table B.2.2-4 shows the hydrological conditions in 9 observatories in the Survey area by DSI and Map shows these locations. The secondary hydrological data which was able to be acquired is only 9 observatories in the middle and lower Coruh river, Tortum, Oltu and Berta rivers.
With regard to water quality, were not surveyed. But will be described a limited data of Oltu river in 2.4 Freshwater Fisheries section.
B – 31
Karsikoy
Current(m3/sec) Sedimentation(ton/day)
1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 10 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure B.2.2-1(1) Hydrological Conditions of Coruh River at Karsikoy
IRPIR
100000
10000
1000 Current (m3) Sedimantation (ton/day) 100
10
1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure B.2.2-1(2) Hydrological Conditions of Coruh River at Ispir Bridge
ALTINSU
1000000
100000
10000 Current(m3/sec) 1000 Sedimentation(ton/day) 100
10
1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure B.2.2-1(3) Hydrological Conditions of Coruh River at Altinsu
B – 32
ASAGIKUMLU
100000
10000
1000 Current(m3/sec)
100 Sedimentation(ton/day)
10
1
b r n l g p t Jan Fe p Ju Ju u Se ec Mar A May A Oc Nov D
Figure B.2.2-1(4) Hydrological Conditions of Oltu River at Asagikumlu
CIFTEHANLAR
10000
1000
Current(m3/sec) 100 Sedimentation(ton/day)
10
1
b n ep v Jan Fe ay Ju Jul S o ec Mar Apr M Aug Oct N D
Figure B.2.2-1(5) Hydrological Conditions of Berta River at Ciftehaniar
COSKUNLAR
100000
10000
1000 Current(m3/sec) Sedimentation(ton/day) 100
10
1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure B.2.2-1(6) Hydrological Conditions of Oltu River at Coskunlar
B – 33
GUNDOGDU
100
Current(m3/sec) 10 Sedimentation(ton/day)
1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure B.2.2-1(7) Hydrological Conditions of Deviskel River at Gundogdu
BAGLIK
10000
1000
Current(m3/sec) 100 Sedimentation(ton/day)
10
1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure B.2.2-1(8) Hydrological Conditions of Berta River at Boglik
ERENKOY
10000
1000
Current(m3/sec) 100 Sedimentation(ton/day)
10
1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure B.2.2-1(9) Hydrological Conditions of Murgul River at Erenkoy
B – 34
Table B.2.2-4 Explanatory Notes of the Observatories
Watershed and Region Number,Name : 23 Coruh watershed 09 Rize Region Station number and Name : 2315 Coruh River - Karsikoy : 57 m, (41°42' 38"N, 41°27' 07"W) Elevation and Place : Choruh river is in the 13th km of Karsikoy to Maradit sub-district from Borcka district which is boundry with Artvin. Gross and Net Perticipation Area : Gross : 19,654.4 km2 Net : 17,835.4km2 Sedimentation Observation Years : 1967/6/20 - 1999/9/08 32 year 356 data Average Sedimentation Distribution : Sand : 53.2% Clay and Silt : 46.8% Average Sedimentation and it's Output : Amount : 7,146,932 ton/year Output : 401 ton/yr/km2 : Tortum Lake 1,819km2 decreased from total Explanations : Deriner Dam 18,839km2 in construction Water Area Decreased from Total : 1,819 km2
Watershed and Region Number,Name : 23 Coruh watershed 09 Erzincan Region Station number and Name : 2316 Coruh River - Ispir bridge : 1,170 m, (40°57' 40"N, 40°27' 32"W) Elevation and Place : On the erzurum-Ispir highway, 40m above of the bridge on Choruh river which is 5km to Ispir. Gross and Net Perticipation Area : Gross : 5,505.2 km2 Net : 5,505.2 km2 Sedimentation Observation Years : 1969/9/26 - 1999/9/28 30 year 348 data Average Sedimentation Distribution : Sand : 42.6% Clay and Silt : 57.4% Average Sedimentation and it's Output : Amount : 505,796 ton/year Output : 92 ton/yr/km2
Watershed and Region Number,Name : 23 Coruh watershed 09 Rize Region Station number and Name : 2322 Coruh River - Altinsu : 201 m, (41°53' 36"N, 41°097' 47"W) Elevation and Place : At the roadside near Altinsu and it is 5 km to Artvin - Yusufeli highway.
Gross and Net Perticipation Area : Gross : 18,326.4 km2 Net : 1,762.0km2 Sedimentation Observation Years : 1984/3/20 - 1999/9/09 15 year 191 data Average Sedimentation Distribution : Sand : 59.3% Clay and Silt : 40.7% Average Sedimentation and it's Output : Amount : 6,962,121 ton/year Output : 422 ton/yr/km2 : Tortum Lake 1,819km2 decreased from total Explanations : Deriner Dam 18,839km2 in construction Water Area Decreased from Total : 1,819 km2
Watershed and Region Number,Name : 23 Coruh watershed 09 Rize Region Station number and Name : 2325 Oltu Stream - Asagikumlu : 1,129 m, (42°07' 48"N, 40°37' 58"W) Elevation and Place : Near Asagikumlu street that is at the 16 km of Oltu - Golu highway connected to Erzurum Gross and Net Perticipation Area : Gross : 1,762.0 km2 Net : 17,835.4km2 Sedimentation Observation Years : 1977/6/23 - 1999/9/22 22 year 254 data Average Sedimentation Distribution : Sand : 62.0% Clay and Silt : 38.0% Average Sedimentation and it's Output : Amount : 854,690 ton/year Output : 485 ton/yr/km2
Watershed and Region Number,Name : 23 Coruh watershed 09 Rize Region Station number and Name : 2327 Berta Stream - Ciftehaniar : 570 m, (42°09' 43"N, 41°15' 31"W) Elevation and Place : Near Ciftehaniar which is 12 km to Sovsali from Artvin - Ardahan road junction.
Gross and Net Perticipation Area : Gross : 1,216.4 km2 Net : 1,216.4km2 Sedimentation Observation Years : 1995/10/11 - 1998/9/22 3 year 36 data Average Sedimentation Distribution : Sand : 45.0% Clay and Silt : 55.0% Average Sedimentation and it's Output : Amount : 73,730 ton/year Output : 61 ton/yr/km2
B – 35
Watershed and Region Number,Name : 23 Coruh watershed 09 Rize Region Station number and Name : 2329 Oltu Stream - Coskunlar : 1,004 m, (42°10' 28"N, 40°45' 58"W) Elevation and Place : On the bridge of Coskunlar village that is 20 km from Oltu - Ardahan highway to 19 km of Oltu sub-district highway. Gross and Net Perticipation Area : Gross : 3,538.8 km2 Net : 3,538.8km2 Sedimentation Observation Years : 1991/1/10 - 1999/9/22 8 year 104 data Average Sedimentation Distribution : Sand : 59.7 % Clay and Silt : 40.3 % Average Sedimentation and it's Output : Amount : 1,531,802 ton/year Output : 433 ton/yr/km2
Watershed and Region Number,Name : 23 Coruh watershed 09 Rize Region Station number and Name : 2331 Deviskel Stream - Gundogdu : 560 m, (41°49' 13"N, 41°18' 09"W) Elevation and Place : Near Forest Management Bulding that is on the highway of Borcka district - Deviskel connected to Artvin. Gross and Net Perticipation Area : Gross : 99.7 km2 Net : 99.7km2 Sedimentation Observation Years : 1988/2/17 - 1999/9/08 11 year 131 data Average Sedimentation Distribution : Sand : 20.8 % Clay and Silt : 79.2 % Average Sedimentation and it's Output : Amount : 6,440 ton/year Output : 65 ton/yr/km2
Watershed and Region Number,Name : 23 Coruh watershed 09 Rize Region Station number and Name : 2334 Berta Stream - Boglik : 366 m, (42°02' 00"N, 41°22' 32"W) Elevation and Place : Near Baglik sub-district which is 15 km from Savsat roadjunction on Altvin - Yusufeli highway. Gross and Net Perticipation Area : Gross : 1,472.6 km2 Net : 1,472.6 km2 Sedimentation Observation Years : 1995/10/12 - 1999/9/23 4 year 48 data Average Sedimentation Distribution : Sand : 48.6 % Clay and Silt : 51.4 % Average Sedimentation and it's Output : Amount : 161,152 ton/year Output : 109 ton/yr/km2
Watershed and Region Number,Name : 23 Coruh watershed 09 Rize Region Station number and Name : 2339 Murgul Stream - Erenkoy : 213 m, (41°37' 26"N, 41°18' 34"W) Elevation and Place 50 m down from Kemer bridge that is at the 12 km of Borcka - Murgul way connected to Artvin. Gross and Net Perticipation Area : Gross : 297.7 km2 Net : 297.7km2 Sedimentation Observation Years : 19897/2/26 - 1999/9/09 10 year 121 data Average Sedimentation Distribution : Sand : 46.9 % Clay and Silt : 53.1 % Average Sedimentation and it's Output : Amount : 1,944,285 ton/year Output : 6,531 ton/yr/km2 Explanations : Materials are cleared by Murgul Copper Managements. source : General Directorate of State Hydraulic Work (DSI)
B – 36
B – 37
The annual transformation of monthly average discharge is increases in the early spring and peak up rise in May. This phenomena cause by melted snow at the early spring.
Data in most observatories shows the one peak type discharge curve. However, three observatories were shown the two peak type discharge curve. Peaks are in May and October.
Moreover, regional rainfall will flows out into the river immediately because the maximum flow rate and the minimum flow rate in the year difference is big in the Coruh river and tributaries.
As for this, Most of basin are not covered up by vegetation and will bear testimony that the out flow coefficient is big.
With regard to sedimentation in stream flow, the movement of the sedimentation quantity included in the stream almost ran side by side with the stream flow variability. However, there was an observatory which always included the sedimentation without a small movement of monthly.
It is the next Map that calculated the average soil discharge quantity in the basin of the observatory’s data. From the Map, we can understand that there are a lot of quantity of soil discharges from the Tortum river basin and Middle Coruh river basin area, and Oltu river basin.
B – 38
B – 39
B.2.2.3 Situation of Natural Disasters
The summary of the situation of various natural disasters in the Study area is Table B.2.2-5.
With regard to the number of outbreak, it is order of Earthquake, Flood, Avalanche, and Landslide in Artvin, and the order of Flood, Earthquake, Landslide, Avalanche in Erzurum, and the order of Flood, Landslide, Fire, and Avalanche in Bayburt.
When Earthquake and Fire are excluded, it is a disaster related to erosion and flood control, and it is thought whether measures and correspondence is inadequacy.
With regard to human suffering, there is more number of the departed by Earthquakes in Artvin, Flood in Erzurum and Avalanche in Bayburt.
B - 40
Table B.2.2-5(1) Natural Disasters in Artvin A. Number of Disasters, B. Number of Disasters with deeath reported, C Number of Disasters with damage to property reported Number Type of Disaster of Total Earthquake Flood Landslide Avalanche Fire Others DistrictVillagesABC ABC ABC ABC ABC ABC ABC Total 1046 11326 116 739 3713 45 172 3576 33 257 1528 2 71 1703 24 42 480 8 160 326 4 37 Provincial Center 63 280 1 50 143 - 2 57 - 12 3 - - 1 - - 59 - 23 17 1 13 AŞkale 68 1535 3 39 855 1 6 342 2 14 152 - 5 147 - 1 37 - 12 2 - 1 Çat 40 1148 5 70 405 1 12 353 1 26 154 1 14 197 2 6 34 - 11 5 - 1 Hınıs 7930752822- 514911235- 4 994 5 1 - 1 1 - 1 Horasan 76 642 33 93 159 23 41 240 10 30 159 - 11 63 - 4 16 - 6 5 - 1 Ilıca 63 416 2 42 149 - 3 123 2 19 35 - 3 79 - 3 29 - 13 1 - 1 İspir 90 1362 13 75 32 - 3 590 6 27 197 - 4 286 2 10 55 4 29 202 1 2 Karaçoban2040-13-- ---37-1 ------
B - 41 Karayazı 7144116---36-10111 ---5-32-2 Köprüköy 37 461 10 48 138 2 19 104 1 13 100 - 9 112 7 3 6 - 3 1 - 1 Narman 43 584 10 50 223 8 20 123 1 10 90 - 3 55 1 1 60 - 9 33 - 7 Oltu 65 845 2 38 136 - 12 424 2 18 249 - 2 24 - - 12 - 6 - - - Olur 40 272 2 13 50 - 1 136 1 5 55 - 1 - - - 18 1 5 13 - 1 Pasinler 5714488221165239631015-11422329-4 111 Parazaryolu3561242-- 4-- ---472-8-4 --- Şenkaya 69642128315283923012495- 51071 - 31113271 2 Tekman 69391718-22113 --- --1 --1 --- Tortum 51 819 2 41 49 - 4 341 - 15 63 - 5 320 2 5 35 - 10 11 - 2 Uzundere 1038141912--2071988-2241-45275-1
Table B.2.2-5(2) Natural Disasters in Erzurum A. Number of Disasters, B. Number of Disasters with deeath reported, C Number of Disasters with damage to property reported Number Type of Disaster of Total Earthquake Flood Landslide Avalanche Fire Others District Villages A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C Total 311 1111 18 170 1 - 1 423 9 46 357 2 43 132 5 11 190 2 66 8 - 3 Provincial Center 36 171 4 25 - - - 83 2 6 32 - 5 30 2 4 26 - 10 - - - Ardanuç 49 282 3 31 - - - 99 2 8 160 1 12 8 - 3 15 - 8 - - - Arnavi 30 151 - 28 - - - 60 - 12 53 - 11 25 - 1 13 - 4 - - - Borçka 3623291 -1 61212-3 111 3 -2 - - - Hopa 302019- - - 4 -1 613 1 - - 7 -5 2 - - Murgul 108-4 --- 3-23-1 ---2-1 --- Şavşat 61 208 2 32 - - - 29 2 5 67 - 4 25 - - 86 - 22 1 - 1
B - 42 Yusufeli 59 248 6 32 - - - 139 2 10 24 - 4 42 2 2 38 2 14 5 - 2
Table B.2.2-5(3) Natural Disasters in Bayburt A. Number of Disasters, B. Number of Disasters with deeath reported, C Number of Disasters with damage to property reported Number Type of Disaster of Total Earthquake Flood Landslide Avalanche Fire Others District Villages A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C Total 175 1070 10 96 340 1 12 348 1 32 100 - 2 191 4 10 87 3 39 4 1 1
Provincial Center 123 782 8 78 175 1 10 300 1 28 100 - 2 136 3 8 67 2 29 4 1 1
Aydıntepe 23811816------551210-6 ---
Demirözü 29207110149-248-4 ------1014 ---
B.2.3 Forestry
B.2.3.1 Forest Management System
Regional administrative bodies of the Ministry of Forestry in Turkey, organized as follows, are in charge of foresting and forest management in the Study area. Within the Study Area, Artvin and Bayburt, are under the jurisdiction of Eastern Black sea Forestry Regional Directorate located in Trabzon, while Erzurum is managed by the Eastern Anatolia Forestry Regional Directorate located in Erzurum. For the general directorates, the Forestry Regional Directorate Office of OGM and Chief Engineering Offices of AGM, MPG, and ORKOY are bestead in Artvin and Erzurum respectively. Moreover, OGM Forest Enterprise Office and AGM Chief Engineering Office is bestead in Bayburt. Table B.2.3-1 Institutional Organization of Forestry in the Study area Unit Artvin Erzurum Bayburt Eastern Anatolia MOF Forestry Regional Directorate in Erzurum
Forestry Regional Forestry Regional Bayburt Forestry OGM Directorate of Artvin Directorate of Erzurum Enterprise
AGM Chief AGM Chief AGM Chief AGM Engineering in Artvin Engineering in Erzurum Engineering in Bayburt
MPG Chief MPG Chief MPG Engineering in Artvin Engineering inErzurum
ORKOY Chief ORKOY Chief ORKOY Engineering in Artvin Engineering in Erzurum
Among the abovementioned, the organizations, whose activities are related to afforestation are OGM and AGM. OGM particularly carries out afforestation activities from the viewpoint of the wood production, and AGM has been allotted the role for soil conservation. The following Table B.2.3-2 shows the number of AGM staffs of each province. Though the Study Area holds vast devastated land needing measures for preventing soil erosion as soon as possible, , the number of staffs are not sufficient for research works nor to carry out actual measures on the site.
Table B.2.3-2 Number of AGM Staffs in Province Artvin Erzurum Bayburt Total AGM Chief Engineer 11╶ 2 AGM Engineer 3 2 ╶ 5 AGM Technician 1 1 ╶ 2 Other Technician 1 ╶╶ 1 Forest Guard 19 10 3 32 Driver 3 ╶╶ 3 Temporary Employee 11╶ 2 Paymaster 2 1 ╶ 3 Employee 190 36 19 245 Accountant 2 ╶ 13 Total 223 52 23 298 Note: The Nursery Chief Engineer in Bayburt as the AGM Chief Engineer in Bayburt concurrently. Source: JICA Study Team based on AGM in Artvin, Erzurum and Bayburt
B - 43
B.2.3.2 Forest Area Category
The configuration of the forest areas in the Study Area by categories defined from the viewpoint of forest management are as shown in the following Table B.2.3-3.
Table B.2.3-3 Forest Area by Category in the Study Area Artvin Erzurum Bayburt Total Conservation forest area 79,912 79,912 Production forest area 295,478 14,163 989,220 National parks 13,910 13,910 Nature parks 0 Nature reserve 1,191 1,191 Natural monument 0 Total 390,490 14,163 1,084,232 Source: JICA Study Team based on OGM in Artvin, Erzurum and Bayburt
The forest area in Turkey is categorized into production forest for industrial woods, conservation forest for soil and water, and protected areas such as National parks, Nature reserve, Nature parks and Natural monument, which are forests managed for scientific values, wilderness, eco-system, history, and culture and recreation purposes. In addition, there are no private forests. In Artvin province, approximately 76% of the forest areas are production forests, 20% are conservation forests, and the remainders are of National parks and Nature reserves. On the other hand, there are scarce production forests in Bayburt, while data of forest area category in Erzurum could not be acquired.
B.2.3.3 Forest Classifications
The classification of the forests in the Study area is shown in Table B.2.3-4. Data of Bayburt province being unable to acquire, substitute data of Trabzon, which includes Bayburt was used.
Table B.2.3-4(1) Forest Area Classifications (by hectors) High Forests CoppiceTotal Remarks Coniferous Deciduous Mixed sub-total Productive 106,507 38,566 39,856 184,929 6,995 191,924 Artvin Unproductive 59,861 14,150 18,710 92,721 105,804 198,525 Total 166,368 52,716 58,566 277,650 112,799 390,449 Productive 120,134 115 111 120,360 5,869 126,229 Erzurum Unproductive 53,671 16 31,636 85,323 170,340 255,663 Total 173,805 131 31,747 205,683 176,209 381,892 Productive 95,932 58,826 55,671 210,429 6,597 217,026 Trabzon Unproductive 82,296 65,076 61,670 209,042 96,247 305,289 Bayburt Total 178,228 123,902 117,341 419,471 102,844 522,315 Productive 322,573 97,507 95,638 515,718 19,461 535,179 Total Unproductive 195,828 79,242 112,016 387,086 372,391 759,477 Total 518,401 176,749 207,654 902,804 391,852 1,294,656 Normal 5,995,120 1,414,876 632,859 8,042,855 2,545,132 10,547,987 Productive Turkey Degraded 3,937,335 1,178,461 720,525 5,836,321 4,318,814 10,155,135 Unproductive Total 9,932,455 2,593,337 1,353,384 13,879,176 6,863,946 20,703,122 Source ; Ministry of Forestry, 1997
B - 44
Table B.2.3-4(2) Forest Area Classifications (by percentage) High Forests Coppice Total Coniferous Deciduous Mixed sub-total Productive 27.3% 9.9% 10.2% 47.4% 1.8% 49.2% Artvin Unproductive 15.3% 3.6% 4.8% 23.7% 27.1% 50.8% Total 42.6% 13.5% 15.0% 71.1% 28.9% 100.0% Productive 31.5% 0.0% 0.0% 31.5% 1.5% 33.1% Erzurum Unproductive 14.1% 0.0% 8.3% 22.3% 44.6% 66.9% Total 45.5% 0.0% 8.3% 53.9% 46.1% 100.0% Productive 18.4% 11.3% 10.7% 40.3% 1.3% 41.6% Trabzon Unproductive 15.8% 12.5% 11.8% 40.0% 18.4% 58.4% Total 34.1% 23.7% 22.5% 80.3% 19.7% 100.0% Productive 24.9% 7.5% 7.4% 39.8% 1.5% 41.3% Total Unproductive 15.1% 6.1% 8.7% 29.9% 28.8% 58.7% Total 40.0% 13.7% 16.0% 69.7% 30.3% 100.0% Productive 29.0% 6.8% 3.1% 38.8% 12.3% 50.9% Turkey Unproductive 19.0% 5.7% 3.5% 28.2% 20.9% 49.1% Total 48.0% 12.5% 6.5% 67.0% 33.2% 100.0% Source ; Ministry of Forestry, 1997
As seen from the point of forest resources, forest areas are largely categorized into high forest (Silva forests) and coppice forest (scrub thicket), and each of them are classified into normal forest (Productive forests) and degraded forest (Unproductive forests or Non-productive forests) respectively according to their conditions. This procedure is prescribed by crown density (canopy density). Forests with the crown density of 0-10% are defined as degraded forest, while those with the crown density of 11-100% are normal forest. The forest areas in Artvin spread widely throughout the province, and are dominated by high forest and coppice forest areas (71% and 29% of total forest area, respectively). However, 33% of high forest and 94% of coppice forest is already degraded The forest areas in Erzurum consists of 54% high forest area and 46% coppice forest area, of which 71% and 29% of them are degraded forest, respectively. The ratio of degraded forest is more than 50% of the forest areas in Artvin, Erzurum, Trabzon area, and the ratio is higher than the national average of 49%. It is clear that factors such as moisture (water), light, temperature, oxygen and nourishment (soil) play essential rolls for plant growth. In addition to these factors, soil is also indispensably necessary for securing the root for tree growth. While deforestation, unplanned forest use and so on can be enumerated as one of the reasons for the Study Area being dominated by degraded forests, another important factor is the limitation of basic natural conditions that are indispensable for plant growth. The main natural conditions, working as limiting factors, are as follows. 1) Low annual precipitation (with the exception of the northern part of Artvin, the annual precipitation is equal to or less than 500mm). 2) Serve temperature changes (maximum and minimum temperatures indicating 35 ºC and -25 ºC respectively, and the annual number of days with the average temperatureexceeding 10 ºC, which is the temperature necessary for plant growth, being 150days in Erzurum, and 170days in Oltu and Tortum). 3) Oligotrophic soil and thin top soil layer 4) Steep slopes making the top soil unstable
B - 45
Unfortunately, changing these natural conditions working as limiting factors if at all possible is clearly unpractical. Furthermore, under the present forest management system and forest utilization, it is anticipated that no matter how much afforestation took place, it will not lead to the recovery forests in the study area. Thus the first step for the recovery of forests would be the complete protection/conservation of the remaining forests, and the improvement of degraded forests, based on appropriate field survey, analysis, and planning, would be to follow.
B.2.3.4 Forest Activities
Table B.2.3-5 shows the forestry activities from 1994 to 2001 years in the national forest in the Study area. Basic forestry activities are afforestation, natural and artificial regeneration, forest protection, forest management prescription (cleaning/weeding/yield, etc), erosion control, and so on. The soil erosion control activity is mainly done in Artvin. However, activities of afforestation, artificial regeneration and establishment of energy forest (coppice forest) are not performed in recent years. Afforestation and erosion control activity are main subject in Erzurum, and all forestry activities are small-scale in Bayburt. With regard to other forestry activities, daily practical activities for maintenance of forest area and/or erosion control works part and the nursing seedling and management in the nursery are thought. In afforestation, planting the most suitable tree species for adapts to leverage purpose on the best habitat by the tree species, cultivate young trees, and yielding in a short term is basic concept. This is said proper tree on proper site. Moreover, choosing an excellent plant species/strain and regenerating efficiently in short period are merit of afforestation.
Turkey has experience and appreciated results of after many years, and hares there are success example in a lots of place. However, the forest management system is considered standardized forestry management and technology system, therefore is considered to inappropriate for severe condition like the Study area. Same thing can be said even by the planting concerning erosion control works. Original planting techniques and management system in the Study area should be necessary to be likely established. Also, breeding by selection and improvement of the tree species which suited to the natural condition in the Study area is included. Table B.2.3-6 shows annual average allowable cutting in the Study area. Table B.2.3-6 Annual Average Allowable Cutting in the Study Area. High Forest Coppice Regional (㎥) Forest Directorate Sellective Regeneration Management Clearing Total (㎥) cutting Artvin 44,567 261,167 110,599 3,632 419,965 2,163 Erzurum 0 157,416 66,947 0 224,363 11,880 Trabzon 6,888 208,566 87,589 1,336 304,379 14,927 51,455 627,149 265,135 4,968 948,707 28,970 Total 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.00 Turkey 417,884 8,541,699 2,960,480 119,655 12,039,718 8,837,705 source; Ministry of Forest, 1997
B - 46
Table B.2.3-5 Forestry Activities in the Study Area
Forestry Activities (ha) years Artificial Natural Establishment of Afforestation Erosion control Range improve regeneration regeneration Energy forest 1994 55 180 0 384 11 128 1995 60 215 0 370 0 100 1996 585 2,441 0 217 058 1997 32 1,707 0 141 00 Artvin 1998 0 1,485 0 148 00 1999 0 6,028 0 160 00 2000 2001 1994 000000 1995 000000 1996 000000 1997 544 742 0000 Erzurum 1998 610 350 0000 1999 560 320 0000 2000 660 660 0000 2001 107 1,050 0000 1994 0000050 1995 0000050 1996 0000032 1997 100 1,853 0000 Bayburt 1998 364000020 1999 46400000 2000 2001 Source: JICA Study Team based on data of MOF and OGM in Artvin, Erzurum, Bayburt, 2002
B.2.3.5 Forest Conditions
Table B.2.3-7 shows the areas of forests consisting of major tree species in the Study area.
Coniferous tree species dominate most of the forest areas in the Study Area, with the exception of Artvin where forests with deciduous trees (broad leaf trees) are seen. Regarding tree species, Scotch pine and Spruce are the majority of coniferous species growing to a wide. However, about half of the areas of these forests are degraded. Juniper forests are also seen in small areas, but mostly degraded.
For deciduous trees, Beech, Oak, Alder and Chestnut are seen, but most of the Oak forests are degraded.
Similar tendency is seen in the forest areas of Erzurum and Bayburt. Moreover, there are only limited variations in afforested tree species, and many of them are degraded.
Table B.2.3-8 shows standard cutting age of main tree species in terms of wood production. The site class of the forests in the Study area is assumed to be III for Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris), and the standard cutting age for them are 100 years. The standard cutting age of other tree species in the Study area are also considered to be 100 years.
B - 47
Table B.2.3-8 Standard Cutting Age
Species Name Site Cutting Turkey English Scientific Class Age Karacan Black pine Pinus nigra I80 II,III,IV,V 100
Sarican Scot pine Pinus sylvestris I80 II,III 100
Sedir Sedar Cedrus libani I, II 80 III, IV, V 100
Ladin Spruce Pices orientaris I90 II, III, IV, V 100
Kayin Beech Fagus sp. I 100 II, III, IV, V 120
Kizilcan Red pine Pinus brutia I50 II, III 60
Goknur Fir Abies sp. 100 Source: Ministry of Forestry, 20.07.1978
TableB.2.3-9, B.2.3-10 and Figure B.2.3-1 and B.2.3-2 indicates the normal yield table of Scotch pine and Oak. Regarding these data, it may be said that afforestation for industrial wood production in the Study Area is extremely inefficient.
Table B.2.3-9 Normal Yield Table for Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Site I Number of Average Volume of Top Height Stand Age Trees Diameter Total Yield (m) (/ha) (cm) (㎥/ha) 20 8,052 7.0 3.5 153 25 7,185 6.8 5.2 233 30 6,272 10.5 7.2 305 35 5,307 12.2 9.1 370 40 4,314 13.8 11.1 434 45 3,413 15.4 13.1 492 50 2,776 16.9 14.9 545 55 2,265 18.4 16.8 596 60 1,834 19.8 18.6 645 65 1,488 21.2 20.4 691 70 1,217 22.5 22.1 734 75 995 23.8 23.7 775 80 828 25.0 25.2 811 85 693 26.2 26.8 843 90 586 27.3 28.4 872 95 521 28.4 29.9 894 100 487 29.5 31.2 912
B - 48
Site II Number of Average Volume of Top Height Stand Age Trees Diameter Total Yield (m) (/ha) (cm) (㎥/ha) 20 8,484 5.6 2.3 119 25 7,850 7.0 3.7 184 30 7,227 8.4 5.1 245 35 6,619 9.7 6.6 294 40 6,020 11.0 8.2 342 45 5,461 12.2 9.8 386 50 4,914 13.4 11.2 429 55 4,393 14.6 12.7 473 60 3,919 15.8 14.2 516 65 3,481 16.9 15.7 559 70 3,068 17.9 17.1 600 75 2,689 18.9 18.5 641 80 2,348 19.9 20.0 680 85 2,037 20.9 21.5 717 90 1,751 21.8 23.0 751 95 1,510 22.7 24.4 780 100 1,319 23.5 25.7 806
Site III Number of Average Volume of Top Height Stand Age Trees Diameter Total Yield (m) (/ha) (cm) (㎥) 20 8,917 4.2 1.0 85 25 8,515 5.2 2.1 132 30 8,181 6.2 3.0 176 35 7,931 7.2 4.1 216 40 7,725 8.2 5.3 255 45 7,509 9.1 6.5 290 50 7,052 10.0 7.5 327 55 6,521 10.9 8.6 365 60 6,004 11.7 9.8 402 65 5,473 12.6 11.1 440 70 4,923 13.3 12.2 478 75 4,382 14.1 13.4 517 80 3,867 14.8 14.7 553 85 3,381 15.5 16.1 588 90 2,915 16.2 17.5 622 95 2,499 16.9 18.9 653 100 2,143 17.5 20.2 679 Source: Ministry of Forestry "ORMAN AGACLARIMIZIN BONITET HASILAT VE GOVDE HACIM TABLOLARI"
B - 49
Pinus sylvestris Yield curves y = -0.2877x2 + 42.396x + 47.263 1,000 R2 = 0.9997 900 800 700 600 Site I 500 Site II 400 Site III 300 200
Volume of Total Yield (m3/ha) Yield Total of Volume 100 0 Stand age
Figure B.2.3-1 Yield Curves for Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Table B.2.3-10 Normal Yield Table for Quercus sp.
Site I Number of Average Volume of Top Height Stand Age Trees Diameter Total Yield (m) (/ha) (cm) (㎥/ha) 20 4,270 7.5 6.8 18 30 2,070 12.7 10.5 80 40 1,230 16.2 14.0 131 50 809 18.7 17.5 171 60 578 20.7 21.0 204 70 433 22.5 24.5 233 80 338 24.1 28.0 260 90 271 25.5 31.5 283 100 223 26.7 34.9 301 110 187 27.7 38.3 317 120 159 28.5 41.7 331
B - 50
Site II Number of Average Volume of Top Height Stand Age Trees Diameter Total Yield (m) (/ha) (cm) (㎥/ha) 20 ╶╶╶╶ 30 4,710 9.2 6.7 35 40 2,396 12.4 9.6 82 50 1,436 14.9 12.7 122 60 946 17.0 15.8 155 70 670 18.8 19.1 184 80 494 20.3 22.4 207 90 376 21.6 25.9 227 100 297 22.7 29.3 243 110 241 23.7 32.7 258 120 193 24.7 36.2 272
Site III Number of Average Volume of Top Height Stand Age Trees Diameter Total Yield (m) (/ha) (cm) (㎥/ha) 20 ╶╶╶╶ 30 14,284 5.8 3.7 6 40 6,154 8.7 5.8 42 50 2,914 11.2 8.6 78 60 1,594 13.3 11.8 111 70 984 15.0 15.3 138 80 674 16.5 18.6 159 90 496 17.8 21.8 178 100 380 18.9 25.1 193 110 297 19.9 28.4 205 120 238 20.9 31.8 217 Source: Ministry of Forestry "ORMAN AGACLARIMIZIN BONITET HASILAT VE GOVDE HACIM TABLOLARI"
Quercus sp.
350 300 250 200 Site I 150 Site II 100 Site III 50 Volume of TotalYield 0 -50 024681012
Figure B.2.3-2 Yield Curves for Quercus sp.
B - 51
Afforestation for industrial wood production in the study area is assumed to be feasible only among the assumption of detailed afforestation plans selecting appropriate areas for tree growth. However, it is even more important to define the precise objectives of the afforestation.
Table B.2.3-11 and B.2.3-12 shows the standing volume of each forest age class in the Study area, and the area of the each forest age class respectively
Moreover, the Table B.2.3-13 shows average standing volume per unit area (m3/ha) of each forest age class.
According to the data indicated in the tables mentioned above, the planted forests of Artvin are dominated by forest age classes of II and IV, while forests in Erzurum only consists of forest age class III. Moreover, it may be noted that these forests has not yet reached the standard cutting age, and that the decrease of planted forests in recent years is salient.
Table B.2.3-14 indicates the forest areas of each site class in the Study area. Even for the normal forests, more than half is site class III or less, and is difficult to say that the Study Area has suitable conditions in terms of afforestation, which should be carried out under the basis of “selecting appropriate areas”.
B - 52
Table B.2.3-7 Forest Area by Type and Tree Species by Province in the Study Area
Artvin Erzurum Ba yburt Total Normal Degraded Total Normal Degraded Total Normal Degraded Total Normal Degraded High Forest 184,929 92,721 277,650 120,360 85,323 205,683 570 4,635 5,205 305,859 182,679 Coniferous 106,507 59,861 166,368 120,134 53,671 173,805 570 4,238 4,808 227,211 117,770 Scotch pine 24,168 16,410 40,578 570 770 1,340 24,738 Fir 3,529 7,605 11,134 0 0 0 3,529 Spruce 21,111 23,595 44,706 0 0 0 21,111 Juniper 0 576 576 0 3,252 3,252 0 Cluster pine000 0000 Stone pine505 0005 Mixed 57,694 11,675 69,369 0 216 216 57,694 Deciduous 38,566 14,150 52,716 115 16 131 0 97 97 38,681 14,263 Beech 10,676 2,258 12,934 0 0 0 10,676 Oak 2,330 2,482 4,812 0 0 0 2,330 Hornbeam 000 0000 Alder 6,267 1,931 8,198 0 0 0 6,267
B - 53 B - Poplar 000 097970 Chestnut 1,007 10 1,017 0 0 0 1,007 Maple000 0000 Mixed 18,286 7,469 25,755 0 0 0 18,286 Mixed 39,856 18,710 58,566 111 31,636 31,747 0 300 300 39,967 50,646 Coppice 6,995 105,804 112,799 5,869 170,340 176,209 3,286 5,672 8,958 16,150 281,816 Oak 1,477 40,502 41,979 2,699 5,393 8,092 4,176 Beech 000 0000 Hornbeam 000 0000 Chestnut000 0000 Alder 0191191 0000 Rhododendron 08989 0000 Mixed 5,518 65,022 70,540 587 279 866 6,105 Forest Total 191,924 198,525 390,449 126,229 255,663 381,892 3,856 10,307 14,163 322,009 464,495 Note: The gap in area between normal forest and total is degraded forest. Source: JICA Study Team based on data of Ministry of Forestry,1997 and OGM in Artvin, Erzurum and Bayburt, 2002
Table B.2.3-11 Standing Volume according to Age Class in the Study Are
unit;㎥ Total Regional Age class(10 years) Unknown High Directorate Age class I II III IV V VI VII Total Forest Artvin 4,828 474,482 14,638,429 6,345,499 12,381,996 5,702,300 583,438 40,130,972 1,102,310 41,233,282 Erzurum 0 0 19,515,424 0 0 0 0 19,515,424 939,775 20,455,199 Trabzon 3,619 590,466 9,257,167 10,537,645 10,318,697 1,712,352 4,513 32,424,459 4,004,637 36,429,096 8,447 1,064,948 43,411,020 16,883,144 22,700,693 7,414,652 587,951 92,070,855 6,046,722 98,117,577 Total 0.00 0.04 0.18 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.09 Turkey 2,747,216 28,567,370 246,899,577 200,710,669 254,137,662 232,361,991 28,230,352 993,654,837 61,620,652 1,055,275,489 Source; Ministry of Forest, 1997
B - 54 B - Table B.2.3-12 Forest Area according to Age Class in the Study Are
unit; ha Age class(10 years) Total Regional Unknown High Directorate I II III IV V VI VII Total Age class Forest Artvin 3,592 4,646 74,674 33,417 47,246 19,740 1,614 184,929 92,721 277,650 Erzurum 0 0 120,360 0 0 0 0 120,360 85,323 205,683 Trabzon 5,284 8,345 64,330 65,130 53,153 14,128 59 210,429 209,042 419,471 8,876 12,991 259,364 98,547 100,399 33,868 1,673 515,718 387,086 902,804 Total 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.07 Turkey 1,222,528 475,085 1,826,611 1,357,698 1,445,679 1,464,868 210,386 8,002,855 5,836,321 13,839,176 Source; Ministry of Forest, 1997
Table B.2.3-13 Average Standing Volume per Hectares in the Study Are
unit; ㎥/ha Age class(10 years) Total Regional Unknown High Directorate I II III IV V VI VII Total Age class Forest Artvin 1.3 102.1 196.0 189.9 262.1 288.9 361.5 217.0 11.9 148.5 Erzurum 0.0 0.0 162.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 99.5 Trabzon 0.7 70.8 143.9 161.8 194.1 121.2 76.5 154.1 19.2 86.8 Total 1.0 82.0 167.4 171.3 226.1 218.9 351.4 178.5 15.6 108.7 Turkey 2.2 60.1 135.2 147.8 175.8 158.6 134.2 124.2 10.6 76.3 Source; JICA study team besed on data by Ministry of Forest, 1997
Table B.2.3-13 Site Class Classification of Forest Area in the Study Are
B - 55 B - unit;ha Regional Normal Forest Degraded Total Directorate Forest High Forest I II III IV V Total 7,185 59,344 83,083 24,334 9,983 183,929 92,721 277,650 Artvin 0.03 0.21 0.30 0.09 0.04 0.66 0.33 1.00 0 0 120,360 0 0 120,360 85,323 205,683 Erzurum 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.41 1.00 4,747 29,776 134,955 31,876 9,075 210,429 209,042 419,471 Trabzon 0.01 0.07 0.32 0.08 0.02 0.50 0.50 1.00 11,932 89,120 338,398 56,210 19,058 514,718 387,086 902,804 Total 0.01 0.10 0.37 0.06 0.02 0.57 0.43 1.00 540,222 2,402,853 3,389,254 1,006,270 664,256 8,002,855 5,836,321 13,839,176 Turkey 0.04 0.17 0.24 0.07 0.05 0.58 0.42 1.00 Source; Ministry of Forest, 1997
B.2.3.6 Forest Products and Non-Wood Products
Table B.2.3-14 and B.2.3-15 shows the production situation of forest products in the Study area, while Table B.2.3-16 shows the production situation of non-wood products.
Table B.2.3-14 Forest Products in the Study Area 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average Industry MOF(OGM) 176.6 134.6 114.5 122.9 92.4 128.2 Wood Production Private sector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1000m3) sub total 176.6 134.6 114.5 122.9 92.4 128.2 MOF(OGM) 110.3 73.5 88.4 73.4 109.9 90.9 Fuel Private sector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wood Production Artvin Unrecorded 60.0 50.0 55.0 45.0 60.0 54.0 (1000m3) sub total 170.3 123.5 143.4 118.4 169.9 144.9 MOF(OGM) 286.9 208.1 202.9 196.3 201.4 219.1 Total Private sector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Production (1000m3) Unrecorded 60.0 50.0 55.0 45.0 60.0 54.0 Total 346.9 258.1 257.9 241.3 261.4 273.1 Industry MOF(OGM) Wood Production Private sector (1000m3) sub total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MOF(OGM) Fuel Private sector Wood Production Erzurum Unrecorded (1000m3) sub total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MOF(OGM) Total Private sector Production (1000m3) Unrecorded Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Industry MOF(OGM) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.500 ster Wood Production Private sector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1000m3) sub total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.500 ster MOF(OGM) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fuel Private sector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wood Production Bayburt Unrecorded 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1000m3) sub total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MOF(OGM) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Private sector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Production (1000m3) Unrecorded 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note:Private sector's figures are estimateed. 1 ster=0.6~0.7ton source ; JICA Stady Team based on General Directorate of Forestry
Table B.2.3-15 Industrial Wood Products from State Forest in the Study Area unit : m3 Other Year SawlogsPulp wood Total industrial 1995 96,900 47,900 31,800 176,600 1996 78,800 39,600 16,200 134,600 Artvin 1997 76,300 33,600 4,600 114,500 1998 78,800 24,000 20,100 122,900 1999 61,214 26,155 5,095 92,464 1995 1996 Erzurum 1997 1998 1999 1995 0000 1996 0000 Bayburt 1997 0000 1998 0000 1999 0000 source : General Directorate of Forestry
B - 56
Table B.2.3-15 Non Wood Products in the Study Area
Rhodedendron Year flower tons 1995 20 1996 17 Artvin 1997 11 1998 8 1999 3 Source; JICA Study Team based on General Directorate of Forestry
The production of industrial wood products in Artvin once reaching more than 100,000 ㎥ per year during the period of 1995 - 1998, showed sudden decrease in 1999.
On the other hand, production of fuel wood products has increased in the same year, particularly for those cut with out the permission of MOF (illegal logging by residents around forest areas). Approximately 20% of the consumed fuel wood is assumed to be supplied by illegal logging.
In Bayburt, record of industrial production of forest product is not recorded due to its small scale. The annual fuel wood production in Bayburt has been reported to have the average of approximately 1,500sters (1ster=0.6~0.7 ton. Calculated on the assumption of specific gravity of the Oak wood being adjusted to approximately 0.9ton/㎥ in Japan, and 1,500ster being nearly equal to1,000 ㎥).
However, the actual amount of production and consumption of fuel wood are assumed to be more than the recorded amount judging from the case in Artvin.
According to FAO, the total forest area of the world was 4.1 billion ha in 1993, and the amount of harvest was 34 billion ㎥ in the same year. The usage of the harvested wood was bisected into industrial use such as lumber and pulp material, and domestic use such as fuels for heating and cooking, with the ratio of 45:55. And, though having regional differences, there was a tendency of domestic consumption showing higher ratios in regions where infrastructure relevant to energy are not sufficient.
Presumption of amounts of fuel wood consumed (amount of harvesting for fuel wood) in the Study Area was done as follows.
The monthly amount of consumption of fuel wood for cooking and heating was postulated to be about 25sters for one family (average household size: Artvin=4.7, Erzurum=6.4, Bayburt=5.8) though depending on weather.
When assumed that the consumption of fuel wood for heating starts when the monthly average temperature drops to 10ºC or less, fuel wood will be consumed for five months
B - 57
(Nov. – Mar.) in Artvin, and 7 months (Oct. – Apr.) in other areas.
The estimated finding is shown Table B.2.3-16, while the amount of increment of coppice forest (mainly used for harvesting fuel wood) is shown in the B.2.3-17.
Table B.2.3-16 Estimated Finding of Fuel Wood Consumption in the Study Area
Heating Consumption of Forest Village Household number SC period Fuel wood in Population(2000) (Population/4 person) (monthes) heating period (㎥) Berta 31,550 6,713 7 822,343 Lower Coruh 22,949 4,883 5 427,263 Middle Coruh 20,873 4,441 7 544,023 Oltu 46,319 7,238 7 886,655 Tortum 16,564 2,589 7 317,153 Upper Coruh 17,645 2,893 7 354,393 Total 155,900 38,978 3,351,830 Source: JICA Study Team
Table B.2.3-17 Estimation of Amount of Increment of Coppice per Year in the Study Area
Average Ratio of Coppice Forest area Annual Annual Growing SC forest (ha ; 2001) Growing (㎥) (%) (㎥/ha) Berta 190,528 28.9 1.1 60,569 Lower Coruh 164,587 28.9 1.1 52,322 Middle Coruh 171,796 28.9 1.1 54,614 Oltu 114,561 46.1 1.1 58,094 Tortum 36,315 46.1 1.1 18,415 Upper Coruh 61,696 54.6 1.1 37,055 Total 739,482 281,069 Berta, Lowe Coruh & Middle Coruh ; apply an Artvin data Oltu & Tortum ; apply an Erzurum data Upper Coruh ; apply Average of Bayburt & Erzurum data Source: JICA Study Team
These figures bring in to relief the existence of the type of forestry depriving from forest resources.
Forestry is an industry of which utilizes the products produced by the forest, and if the forest is not continuously kept, this industry is cannot exist. The best answer from the viewpoint of environmental conservation, in such severe natural condition like the Study Area, is sustain the presence of the forest. There are no results besides decreased or destroyed forests if the usage of forest products continues to exceed the amount of increment.
B - 58
Under this situation, the environment of Coruh river basin will be destroyed, and disasters such as soil erosion, floods, slope collapses and landslides will increase; also water level of the river will decrease.
For Non-wood products, the collection of Rhododendron flowers is the only activity being recorded. Table B.2.3-15 shows the recorded Non-wood products in the Study area.
B.2.3.7 Nursery Practices
There are 6 nurseries established in the Study area and its vicinity, where two is in Artvin (Harmanli, Susuz), three is in Erzurum (Erzurum, Horasan, Sarikamis)and one in Bayburt. The current state of the nurseries is described as follows.
As for the scale of the nursery, the capacity of seedling production is from 1,000,000 seedlings per year at Harmanli up to 5,000,000 seedlings per year at Bayburt. However, the actual production has stayed at about 1/3-1/20 of the capacities.
The reasons are thought as follows. 1．Facilities are out of date, and the facilities maintenance is insufficient. 2．Insufficient annual budget. 3．Decrease of demand due to stagnation of forestry activity
Furthermore, new research activities such as introduction of new species or adaptability of tree species to devastated land, etc. are hardly done.
The demands for seedling are assumed to rise as environmental improvements, activation of forestry, erosion control, and energy forest improvements are carried out in the Study area. Thus the Nursery, which is the basic facility to answer these demands、 should be firstly enhanced of its facilities and seedling production capacity.
B - 59
Memo 1 Ardanac Gecici Harmanli Nursery
1. Location Longitude : E 42 15' 32" Latitude : N 41 35' 42" Altitude : 700m Direction : West Address : Selimoglu, Harmanli koyu, Ardanac district, Artvin city 2.Organization Regional Directorate : Eastern Black Sea forestry Regional Directrate in Trabson Nursery Directorate : Head Engineering : Artvin Engineering : Ardanuc 3.Area of the Nursery Total area : 39,463㎡ Seedling area :26,100㎡ Net seedling apace : 18,350㎡ Bulb plant production area : 900㎡ Net apace : 750㎡ Building & Settlement area : 1,800㎡ Road : 3,000㎡ 4. Distributed plants species & numbers (Nursery production capability : 1,000,000~1,500,000 seedlings) unit : seedling Plant name 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total Turkish name Fagus orientalis 758,410 291,000 445,000 205,000 30,000 38,500 6,000 1,773,910 Kayin Robinia pseudacacia 158,300 139,500 131,600 261,000 287,400 84,100 221,000 1,282,900 Y.Akasya Tilia orientia 7,500 5,600 15,000 2,000 ╶ 8,000 89,300 127,400 Ihlamur Juglars regia 20 1,000 3,000 29,550 17,500 5,000 4,400 60,470 Ceviz Castanea safira ╶╶╶╶╶ 4,000 7,700 11,700 Kestane Cappry ╶╶╶ 6,000 15,600 12,400 17,450 51,450 Kapari (Tuplu) Almond 600 ╶ 7,950 3,300 2,700 1,800 ╶ 16,350 Badem Picea orientalis ╶ 6,000 2,050 5,100 ╶ 100 ╶ 13,250 Ladin Pinus sylvestris ╶╶╶╶ 3,600 ╶╶ 3,600 saricam Populus nigra ╶ 100 ╶╶╶╶ ╶ 100 Kavak Picea Argentaris 30 35 190 ╶╶╶ ╶ 255 Mavi Ladin Pinus pnea 1,880 ╶╶╶╶╶ ╶ 1,880 F. Cami Picea orientalis 2,610 ╶╶╶╶╶ ╶ 2,610 D. Ladini Quercus sp. ╶╶ 3,300 ╶ 19,500 35,000 57,800 Mesa Total 929,350 443,235 604,790 515,250 356,800 173,400 380,850 3,403,675
5. Distribution schedule unit : seedling Organization tree type 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total Coniferis 5,990 400 50 3,450 ╶╶ ╶ 9,890 OGM Broadleaf 923,330 294,100 504,000 202,050 15,000 29,000 12,550 1,980,030 Coniferis ╶ 5,635 1,940 1,650 3,600 ╶╶ 12,825 AGM Broadleaf ╶ 143,000 98,000 308,100 338,200 133,200 359,250 1,379,750 Coniferis ╶╶╶╶╶ 100 ╶ 100 Association Broadleaf ╶╶╶╶╶ 334 ╶ 334 Coniferis ╶╶ ╶╶╶ ╶ 0 School Broadleaf ╶╶ 450 ╶╶╶ ╶ 450 Coniferis 30 ╶ 250 ╶╶╶ ╶ 280 Other Establishment Broadleaf ╶ 100 ╶╶10,776 9,050 19,926 Total 929,350 443,235 604,690 515,250 356,800 173,410 380,850 3,403,585
6. Future plan unit : seedling Plant name 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Robinia pseudacacia 489,000 500,000 462,000 516,000 500,000 506,000 2,973,000 Tilia orientia ╶ 40,000 40,000 52,000 40,000 52,000 224,000 Quercus sp. 65,000 60,000 60,000 90,000 54,000 90,000 419,000 Castanea safira 7,000 10,000 10,000 12,000 10,000 12,000 61,000 Juglars regia 13,200 20,000 20,000 26,400 20,000 26,400 126,000 Almond (Baden) ╶ 10,000 10,000 15,000 10,000 15,000 60,000 Cappry 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 360,000 Total 634,200 700,000 662,000 771,400 694,000 761,400 4,223,000
B - 60
Memo 2 Savsat Susuz Nursery
1. Location Longitude : E 42 20' 00"～42 20'30" Latitude : N 41 14' 30"～41 15'00" Altitude : 1,100m Direction : West Address : Velta, Sususz koyu, Merkez sub-district, Savsat district, Artvin city 2.Organization Regional Directorate : Eastern Black Sea forestry Regional Directrate in Trabson Nursery Directorate : AGM Head Engineering : Artvin AGM Engineering : Savsat 3.Area of the Nursery Total area : 81,684㎡ Seedling area :53,925㎡ Net seedling apace : 35,950㎡ Bulb plant production area : 0㎡ Building & Settlement area : 7,140㎡ Road : 3,600㎡ Other open space : 17,019㎡ 4. Distributed plants species & numbers (Nursery production capability : 2,500,000 seedlings) unit : seedling Plant name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Turkish name Fagus orientalis 1,151,000 980,000 685,000 500,000 ╶ 3,316,000 Kayin Abies sp 100,000 520,000 80,000 ╶╶ 700,000 Goknar Cedrus libani 90,000 ╶ 72,000 ╶╶ 162,000 Sedir Pinus sylvestris 937,500 2,212,500 512,500 ╶╶ 3,662,500 Cs Robinia pseudacacia 450,000 508,500 550,000 ╶ 337,500 1,846,000 Y.Akasya Rosa canina 4,500 9,000 ╶╶╶ 13,500 Kasburnu Alnus glutinosa 22,500 35,000 18,500 150,000 52,500 278,500 Kz Juglars regia ╶╶╶ ╶15,000 15,000 Ceviz Total 2,755,500 4,265,000 1,918,000 650,000 405,000 9,993,500
5. Distribution schedule unit : seedling Plant name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Turkish name Fagus orientalis 938,500 401,000 251,500 298,500 165,500 2,055,000 Kayin Abies sp 123,000 39,000 5,000 ╶╶ 167,000 Goknar Cedrus libani 18,000 20,500 29,500 ╶╶ 68,000 Sedir Pinus sylvestris 642,000 703,000 780,000 910,000 ╶ 3,035,000 Cs Robinia pseudacacia 432,000 487,500 480,000 ╶ 323,000 1,722,500 Y.Akasya Rosa canina ╶ 3,500 1,100 1,200 ╶ 5,800 Kasburnu Alnus glutinosa 18,000 10,500 13,500 10,000 ╶ 52,000 Kz Juglars regia ╶╶╶ ╶13,000 13,000 Ceviz Total 2,171,500 1,665,000 1,560,600 1,219,700 501,500 7,118,300
6. Future plan unit : seedling Plant name 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Fagus orientalis 610,000 600,000 700,000 600,000 600,000 3,110,000 Robinia pseudacacia 250,000 400,000 400,000 350,000 400,000 1,800,000 Alnus glutinosa 60,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 100,000 510,000 ╶ 200,000 300,000 250,000 350,000 1,100,000 ╶╶100,000 50,000 50,000 200,000 Total 920,000 1,300,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 6,720,000
B - 61
Memo 3 Erzurum Nursery
1. Location Longitude : E 41o15'29" Latitude : N 39o55'25" Altitude : 1,843m Direction : North west Address : Terminal mahallesi, Merkez, Erzurum 2.Organization Regional Directorate : Eastern Anatolia Forestry Regional Directorate in Erzurum Nursery Directorate : Erzurum AGM Head Engineering : Erzurum AGM Engineering : Erzurum 3.Area of the Nursery Total area : 445,884㎡ Plant growing area :325,120㎡ Net seedling apace : 13,200㎡ Bulb plant production area : 39,000㎡ Transplanting area : 173,100㎡ Poplar production area : 173,100㎡ Building & Settlement area : 71,557㎡ Road : 36,900㎡ Other open space : 12,007㎡ 4. Distributed plants species & numbers (Nursery production capability : 3,730,000 seedlings) unit : seedling Plant name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Turkish name Pinus sylvestris 2,311,000 1,950,000 2,100,000 1,470,036 1,985,000 9,816,036 Saricam Robinia pseudacacia 35,850 19,800 40,500 27,307 42,000 165,457 Akasya Salix caucasia 6,550 4,500 6,000 7,160 6,400 30,610 Kafkas Sogudu Salix viminalis 1,000 1,650 2,200 2,270 2,450 9,570 Sepetci Sogududur Ulmus sp. 36,377 30,500 35,000 14,560 16,650 133,087 Disbudak Flaxinus angustifolia 4,300 2,900 3,700 17,200 10,700 38,800 Igde Betula sp 166,494 172,000 1,287,500 136,183 433,800 2,195,977 Hus Acer saccharinum 35,250 30,900 24,500 38,392 30,300 159,342 Akcaagac Acer sp. 1,000 150 1,150 C.Y.Akccgac Popluu nigra 112,200 94,000 80,500 48,998 38,500 374,198 Kavak Tulia sp. 61,320 61,000 42,000 27,885 25,550 217,755 Karaagac Various Ornamental plants 3,600 4,910 32,650 41,160 Total 2,771,341 2,367,400 3,625,500 1,794,901 2,624,000 13,183,142
Memo4 Horasan Nursery (outside of the Study area)
1. Location Longitude : E 40o 01' 55" Latitude : N 42o 10' 58" Altitude : 1,540m Direction : North west Address : Sariyer, Tunpalti ve Cukurlar, Horasan, Erzurum 2.Organization Regional Directorate : Eastern Anatolia Forestry Regional Directorate in Erzurum Nursery Directorate : Erzurum Nursery Engineer Horasan
3.Area of the Nursery Total area : 870,817㎡ Plant growing area :584,800㎡ Net seedling apace : 29,400㎡ Bulb plant production area : 2,000㎡ Transplanting area : 158,400㎡ Poplar production area : 395,000㎡ Building & Settlement area : 20,000㎡ Road : 49,600㎡ Other open space : 216,470㎡ 4. Distributed plants species & numbers (Nursery production capability : 3,730,000 seedlings) unit : seedling Plant name 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total Turkish name Coniferous 4,000 ╶╶ 9,300 5,000 18,300 Ibreli Deciduous 243,500 108,500 50,900 33,470 75,970 512,340 Yaprakli Populus nigra 72,000 75,000 74,700 64,000 66,000 351,700 Kavak Bulb plants 4,000 3,700 300 1,500 ╶ 9,500 Tuplu Total 323,500 187,200 125,900 108,270 146,970 891,840
5. Income unit : 1000TL Plant name 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total Turkish name Coniferous 4,000 ╶╶ 7,252 3,299 14,551 Ibreli Deciduous 165,705 124,364 18,282 21,999 28,977 359,327 Yaprakli Populus nigra 62,443 ╶ 62,607 70,709 69,353 265,112 Kavak Bulb plants 3,788 3,512 ╶╶╶ 7,300 Tuplu Others 280,356 316,720 3,317,834 2,655,589 8,240,984 14,811,483 Total 516,292 444,596 3,398,723 2,755,549 8,342,613 15,457,773
B - 62
Memo 5 Sarikamis
1. Location Longitude : E 42o 33' 45" Latitude : N 42o 19' 35" Altitude : 2,092m Direction : South Address : Besevler, Sarikamis, Kars 2.Organization Regional Directorate : Eastern Anatolia Forestry Regional Directorate in Erzurum Nursery Directorate : Erzurum Nursery Engineering Sarikamis 3.Area of the Nursery Total area : 67,000㎡ Plant growing area :48,400㎡ Net seedling apace : ㎡ Bulb plant production area : ㎡ Transplanting area : ㎡ Poplar production area : ㎡ Building & Settlement area : 7,037㎡ Road : 6,297㎡ Other open space : 5,266㎡ 4. Produced plants species & numbers (Nursery production capability : 3,200,000 seedlings) unit : seedling Plant name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Pinus sylvestris 520,000 350,000 410,000 410,000 600,000 2,290,000 Bulb plants 45,000 48,000 42,000 44,000 68,000 247,000 Total 565,000 398,000 452,000 454,000 668,000 2,537,000 5. Income : none 6. Future plan Plant name 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Pinus sylvestris 1,100,000 3,900,000 5,900,000 6,300,000 610,000 17,810,000 0 Total 1,100,000 3,900,000 5,900,000 6,300,000 610,000 17,810,000
Memo6 Bayburt
1. Location Longitude : E 40 16' Latitude : N 40 16' Altitude : 1,550m Direction : East-West Address : Merkez, Bayburt 2.Organization Regional Directorate : Eastern Black Sea forestry Regional Directrate in Trabson Nursery Directorate : Bayburt AGM Head Engineering : AGM Engineering : 3.Area of the Nursery Total area : 535,780 ㎡ Seedling area :439,049㎡ Net seedling apace : 24,500㎡ Transplantation area : 20,000㎡ Bulb plant production area : 4,000㎡ Poplar production area : 390,459㎡ Building & Settlement area : 17,768㎡ Road : 56,640㎡ Other open space : 22323㎡ 4. Produced plants species & numbers (Nursery production capability : 5,000,000 seedlings) unit : seedling Plant name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Turkish name Coniferous 5,000 28,000 ╶ 250,000 100,000 350,000 Ibreli Pinus sylvestris Deciduous 101,000 127,000 145,000 103,600 88,400 565,000 Yaprakli Robinia pseudacacia Acer negund Rosa canina Betula sp. Tilia sp. Populus nigra 62,000 55,000 39,000 46,000 60,000 262,000 Kavak Bulb plants ╶ 6,000 35,000 57,000 15,200 113,200 Tuplu Total 168,000 216,000 219,000 456,600 263,600 1,290,200
B - 63
5. Distributed plants species & numbers with income unit : seedling Plant name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Turkish name Coniferous ╶╶╶150,000 ╶ 150,000 Pinus sylvestris Deciduous 27,305 114,370 183,000 214,000 99,021 637,696 Robinia pseudacacia Acer negund Rosa canina Betula sp. Tilia sp. Populus nigra 46,352 61,524 38,911 52,032 51,455 250,274 Bulb plants 1,908 27,205 38,416 57,170 18,784 143,483 Total 75,565 203,099 260,327 473,202 169,260 1,181,453
5-1. Income unit : 1000TL Plant name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Turkish name Coniferous ╶╶╶╶╶╶ Pinus sylvestris Deciduous 2,975 376,000 225,000 17,500 443,000 1,064,475 Robinia pseudacacia Acer negund Rosa canina Betula sp. Tilia sp. Populus nigra 1,758,530 2,002,760 4,667,100 7,253,280 8,828,000 24,509,670 Bulb plants 61,497 895,250 461,280 711,250 2,153,000 4,282,277 Total 1,823,002 3,274,010 5,353,380 7,982,030 11,424,000 29,856,422
6. Distributed plants according to distributed organization unit : seedling Public Millitary Plant name AGM/OGM Schools Individuals Total service service Coniferous 150,000 ╶╶╶╶150,000 Pinus sylvestris Deciduous 620,890 14,780 ╶ 375 1,651 637,696 Robinia pseudacacia Acer negund Rosa canina Betula sp. Tilia sp. Populus nigra 1,900 2,800 ╶╶245,573 250,273 Bulb plants 100,000 32,221 ╶ 4,255 4,007 140,483 Total 872,790 49,801 ╶ 4,630 251,231 1,178,452
6. Future plan unit : seedling Plant name 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Pinus sylvestris 122,000 182,000 225,000 225,000 255,000 1,009,000 Populus nigra 120,000 50,000 80,000 50,000 80,000 380,000 Robinia pseudacacia 220,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 300,000 1,270,000 Rosa canina ╶ 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000 Tilia sp 20,000 ╶ 10,000 ╶╶30,000 Betula sp. 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 Ulmus sp. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Salix sp. 2,000 ╶╶╶ 1,000 3,000 Quercus sp. ╶ 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 70,000 Acer negurud 20,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 190,000 Total 508,000 516,000 689,000 699,000 760,000 3,172,000
B - 64
B.2.3.8 Forest Diseases and Pests
Table B.2.3-18 shows unexpectedly large amounts of tree harvesting in the Study area. Insect damage is a crucial problem in Artvin, and OGM has been slaved away for measures as 42% of the gross production in 2001 was from felling forced by insect damage.
The followings are harms caused by bark beetles (Dendroctonus micans, Ipis typographus) in Spruce forests. The imago, after passing winter, appears in around May and punches the under barks of Spruce trees for ovipositor. The hatched larva gives insect damage to periphery material by making larva holes. The larva hole is made almost right-angled or in diagonal direction. When maturing, the larva becomes a chrysalis at the end part of the larva hole, becomes an imago, and will emerge to open air.
Organ phosphorus pesticides or carbonate pesticides are commonly used as pest control measures.
The following measures are also often adopted.
1. Mechanical pest control measures percussion, and trap by the bait log etc.
2. Physical pest control measures sonic wave method etc.
3. Forestry pest control measures transition from mono-specie forest to mixed forest, consideration for afforesting, thinning/improvement cutting/and removal of damaged tree
4. Biological control methods protection /breeding of birds as natural enemy, use of counter-pest
However, the results of these measures do not come out in short terms, and continuation of execution and prevention of transmission to other regions are indispensable.
B - 65
Table B.2.3-18(1) Unexpected Harvest types & Amounts
Unit : ㎥ Name of Road Unschedule Fire Storm Deficit Insect Fungi Total Regional Years Construction Others Total d Damage Damage Damege Damage Damage Production Directorate / Others Harvest 1997 0 9,538 28,265 5,135 46,189 ╶ 24,725 113,852 165,218 69% 1998 0 0 10,226 11,817 36,228 0 3,955 62,226 168,341 37% Artvin 1999 0 2,674 6,452 7,535 52,485 0 2,870 72,016 133,831 54% 2000 32 3,855 10,779 8,084 54,774 0 2,063 79,587 151,148 53% 2001 0 13,612 6,247 9,207 63,292 0 4,816 97,174 149,203 65% 1997 0 2,585 332 930 0 ╶ 1,834 5,681 56,187 10% 1998 0 200 4,457 2,942 0 0 117 7,716 62,766 12% Erzurum 1999 450 1,651 121 164 0 0 798 3,184 51,787 6% 2000 1,472 1,133 784 315 151 0 638 4,493 56,618 8% 2001 3,602 3,948 0 0 0 3,664 0 11,214 78,708 14% 1997 0 3,436 1,931 8,221 1,408 ╶ 4,347 19,343 87,556 22%
B - 66 B - 1998 0 2,020 2,404 4,634 1,013 0 3,638 13,709 97,625 14% Trabson 1999 380 2,150 0 5,183 1,117 0 2,386 11,216 97,476 12% (Bayburt) 2000 343 11,532 0 2,352 2,353 0 4,458 21,038 96,075 22% 2001 0 1,324 0 5,695 3,298 0 3,680 13,997 78,824 18% 1997 223,290 158,371 264,860 488,060 324,038 ╶ 16,050 1,474,669 7,256,297 20% 1998 225,171 223,800 127,257 571,144 197,233 2,911 242,671 1,590,187 7,434,225 21% Turkey 1999 284,692 241,009 134,591 401,387 162,987 10,365 160,724 1,395,755 7,926,822 18% 2000 1,136,516 331,638 144,276 310,665 203,377 8,221 121,132 2,255,825 8,548,653 26% 2001 302,663 225,200 60,830 285,961 204,128 13,830 144,293 1,236,905 7,666,305 16%
Table B.2.3-18(2) Unexpected Harvest types & Amounts in Districts in 2000
Unit : ㎥ Name of Name of Road Fire Storm Deficit Insect Fungi Regional Working Construction Others Total Damage Damage Damege Damage Damage Directorate District / Others Artvin 0 2,038 4,382 1,563 35,022 0 1,072 44,077 Ardanuc 0 2,356 539 1,113 10,164 0 1,070 15,242 Borcka 0 430 416 3,954 11,276 0 1,582 17,658 Artvin Murgul 0 0 0 264 2,631 0 152 3,047 Savsat 0 8,491 910 638 4,158 0 940 15,137 Yusufeli 0 297 0 339 41 0 0 677 Senkaya 3,552 2,829 0 0 0 1,736 0 8,117 Erzurum Oltu 0 282 0 0 0 1,642 0 1,924 source; Ministry of Forest
B - 67 B -
B.2.3.9 Roads Networks
The current state of the roads condition in the Study area is showed Table B.2.3-19 to B.2.3-21. About 30% of roads is asphalt or concrete paving, but 70% of the remainder is still under unpavement (stabilized and grading) in the provincial roads. Moreover, density of road network of the provincial roads in the Study area makes3.79m/ha almost equal 3.74km/ha of whole Turkey average, and rate of road improvement in Artvin far higher than Erzurum and Bayburt. On the other hand, Erzurum has vastly wide area and there are many restrictions in geographical features, so density of the road network in Erzurum has stayed in 2.74km/ha. With regard to village road under the administration of GDRS, extension of village road is 11.8km by one village in Artvin, Bayburt is 8.2km, and Erzurum is 6km.The average extension of road of Turkey is about 7.8km, and Erzurum has not improved to the value in Turkey yet.
Table B.2.3-19 Province Roads Inventory unit; km Province Asphalt Road Concrete Road Stabilized Road Grading Road Expected Road Total Extension ARTVIN 96 123 3,046 426 1,447 5,138 ERZURUM 386 0 3,318 2,603 633 6,940 BAYBURT 164 0 905 365 83 1,517 646 123 7,269 3,394 2,163 13,595 TOTAL 4.8% 0.9% 53.5% 25.0% 15.9% 100.0% 85,563 1,717 131,817 60,623 11,497 291,217 Turky 29.4% 0.6% 45.3% 20.8% 3.9% 100.0% source; Service Implementations General Inventory ( CDRS, 01/01/2002)
Table B.2.3-20 Province Road Network Density Total Density Province Area (ha) Extension (m/ha) ARTVIN 685,600 3,691 7.48 ERZURUM 2,532,300 6,307 2.74 BAYBURT 373,900 1,434 4.06 TOTAL 3,591,800 11,432 3.79 Turky 77,945,000 291,217 3.74 source; Service Implementations General Inventory ( CDRS, 01/01/2002)
Table B.2.3-21 Village Road Density Density of Village Road Extention Province Villege Road (km) (km) ARTVIN 314 3,691 11.75 ERZURUM 1,050 6,307 6.01 BAYBURT 175 1,434 8.19 1,539 11,432 7.43 TOTAL 4.14% 3.93% Turky 37,170 291,217 7.83 source; Service Implementations General Inventory ( CDRS, 01/01/2002) ; Statistical Yearbook of Turkey,2001
B - 68 B.2.4 Fresh water fisheries
B.2.4.1 Fishery products
Turkey has rich inland resources, with over 1,300 ha of lakes and 177,714 km river. However, fisheries do not have an adequate share in agriculture and national economy yet, with0.3% in GNP and 2.7% in agriculture sector. The fisheries production was 636,824 tons in 1999, of which 50,190 tons from freshwater fisheries. Despite Turkey’s vast resources for freshwater fisheries, it accounted for only 7.9% of the total fish production in 1999. The most important species are common carp to a lesser extent catfish and mullet. Common carp is distributed throughout the country. Stocking activities have been carried out to enhance freshwater resources by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA), MOF, General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. The main species used for stocking are common carp and other carp species and to a lesser extent trout, wells and perch.
Table B.2.4-1 Freshwater Fisheries Products units:tons Rainbow Common Northern European European Year Karabalik Cyprinids Mullet Others Total Trout carp pike catfish eel 1993 479 759 544 1,067 16,035 304 723 261 21,403 41,575 1994 554 859 640 1,312 15,900 406 857 329 21,981 42,838 1995 594 866 669 1,337 17,081 453 896 390 22,697 44,983 1996 395 905 475 952 15,631 225 705 342 22,572 42,202 1997 200 1,200 700 1,000 16,000 350 1,000 400 29,610 50,460 1998 200 1,200 600 1,200 20,000 200 1,000 300 29,800 54,500 1999 263 516 449 752 17,396 276 958 200 29,380 50,190 2000 277 576 323 698 14,137 224 1,019 176 25,394 42,824 Karabalik : Local water product, like type ofcarp. There is no English equivallent Source : Ministry of Forestry
With regard to freshwater fisheries in the Study area is showing following table. There are 12 places of fish farms in the Coruh river watershed, and rainbow trout of 175 tons a year are produced. There is a small-scale production system by the home management though most fish farms are located around the Tortum lake in Uzundere in Erzurum. According to ORKOY, a trout necessity of the region is 350-400 tons, therefore, consumption has been established by the selling to the road user guest, so not becoming an overproduction at the current state. In general, distribution and sales are in the hands of the private sector. Advantage of freshwater fishery in around the Tortum lake is following. 1. Water sources of the region will be used 2. It will be a good business opportunity for family management 3. It will stimulate for new investments 4. It will improve the socio-economic structure of the region. 5. Stocking, feeding, maintenance and harvesting is easy Moreover, the production method of the trout at present is as follows. 1. Fly (young fish) of 50g standard size are bought in Erzurum. 2. Cultivates for about six months and the fish grow up to 200-250g is sold. 3. Food (Pellet, Bite) is the purchase or homemade. 4. The survival rate is 50-60%
B - 69 Table B.2.4-2 Amount of Freshwater Fisheries Product in Fishfarm in the Coruh river
Name Number of Rainbow of establishme Trout river nts (tons/year) basin Coruh 12 175 source : River basin statistics 1995
B.2.4.2 Potential of freshwater fisheries
The Study area has rich freshwater resources、with about 450 km Coruh river and Tortum lake. The following fish species are captured which make inhabitant in the Coruh river according to the study of the Fishery Faculty, Ataturk University in Erzurum. 1. Salmo trutta labrax 2. Salmo trutta magrostigma (Trout species) 3. Alburnoides bipunctatus (French name: Spirlin) 4. Scardinus erythrophthalmus (English name: Rudd) 5. Leuciscus cephalus (English name: Chub) 6. Chondrostroma regium 7. Barbus pelebejus escherichi 8. Barbus capito capito 9. Capoeta capoeta 10. Capoeta capoeta seiboldi 11. Capoeta tinca 12. Orthrias (Nemacheilus)angorate (English name: Angora loanch) With regard to the river water condition is shown. These data is both the results and observation of previous researchers were taken directly, or their findings were interpreted in the light of other references .
Table B.2.4-3 Temperature in the Oltu river Temperature(oC) Water temperature(ºC) 1994 - 1995 1995 - 1996 1994 - 1995 1995 - 1996 Aug. 27 34 25 26 Sep. 24 22 21 18 Oct22151913 Nov18161211 Dec 12 10 6 6 Jan 11 9 6 6 Feb 12 14 8 9 Mar18131111 Apr18141211 May27281417 Jun28171616 Jul25291825 Note: Observation value of 12:00～14:00 Source: Water and water potential of Oltu, 1998, Ataturk University
B - 70 Table B.2.4-4 Chemical properties of the Oltu and Tortum river water
Total Organic Electrical Month Ca2+ Mg2+ pH Sertlic Alkaline matter conductivity (mg/l) (mg/l) (FrS) (Mg/l CaCO3) (mg/l) (µmhos/cm) Sep. 94 70.4 21.68 7.95 26.80 200 1.76 415 Oct. 94 36.0 30.24 8.27 21.52 110 2.32 330 Nov. 94 54.4 22.56 7.65 23.08 160 3.36 400 Mar. 95 48.0 47.40 8.15 31.58 200 3.20 550 May 95 27.2 30.20 8.25 19.26 176 1.92 340 Jun. 95 48.0 14.40 8.22 18.12 160 2.80 215 Jul. 95 41.6 6.24 7.93 13.15 80 1.20 350 Aug. 95 40.0 16.80 8.15 19.28 150 6.24 280 Sep. 95 56.0 9.80 8.20 18.25 160 4.40 160 Jan. 96 52.0 21.91 7.87 22.20 142 2.72 230 Feb. 96 54.4 22.40 7.29 23.01 138 2.00 240 Mar. 96 28.0 38.40 8.12 22.81 248 3.68 790 Apr. 96 38.4 19.20 8.32 17.63 548 6.32 380 May 96 25.6 20.16 8.12 17.63 194 6.32 220 Jun. 96 41.6 37.44 8.23 25.88 165 1.20 280 Jul. 96 48.0 6.72 7.93 14.98 180 0.48 450 Average 44.35+0.01 22.84+2.88 8.04+0.06 20.89+1.17 188.18+25.8 3.12+0.46 351.87+38.6 Source: Water and water potential of Oltu, 1998, Ataturk University
Table B.2.4-5 Degree of Transparency in the Oltu river 1994 - 1995(cm)1995 - 1996(cm) Aug. 22 28 Sep. 34 3 Oct 37 19 Nov 22 17 Dec 22 22 Jan 19 100 Feb 29 19 Mar 10 21 Apr 10 3 May 3 5 Jun 36 22 Jul 42 100 Note: transparent board use for 10cm in diameter Source: Water and water potential of Oltu, 1998, Ataturk University
Contents can be summarized shortly as follow; 1. The one of important water source is Oltu river with an 32.79 ± 1.69 ㎥/s average annual flow rate. This water source appeared suitable for salmonid fish culture from September 15 to June 15 that is 9 months, if some precautions are taken against to floods and erosion turbidity. 2. It is determined that there were an indigenous fish species (Salmo trutta labrax) living in the 6 of 9 stream. Therefore these streams are appearing suitable for salmonid fish culture in the certain areas in summer months. 3. Starting points of the all streams is appearing suitable for the brood trout culture. 4. In terms of naturally consideration, Oltu river are carrying an importance only for sport fishing.
B - 71 It is considered that being possible to judging of freshwater fishery in Oltu river or/and circumferential area from the above data about natural condition. However, enough consideration might be necessary for an increase in the turbidity by the soil erosion, and cultivation in the fish pound and lakes are more suitable than cultivation in the river.
The policies concerning Freshwater Fishery in the 8th Five Year Development Plan, 2001-2005 is summarized as follows. 1. Protecting water resources within the framework of suitable utilization principle shall the fishery production. 2. In order to increase production, the natural environment of our seas and inland waters shall be protected controlled and improved. Importance shall be attached on improving and spreading cultivation activities, by taking into account interactions among environment, tourism, forestry, transport and other related sectors. 3. In order to provide rational utilization of inland waters, ecological and limnological features shall be determined. Furthermore, fishery activities shall be oriented towards cultivating species that having high economic value and appropriate to the environment. 4. Research activities, aiming at determining the stock size and annual fishing amount shall be carried out continuously and towards implementation, in order to prevent decreasing trend in the production obtained from our seas and to increase production by preserving the resources
B.2.5 Tourism
B.2.5.1 Present situation of tourism
Table B.2.5-1 shows the number of foreign tourists visiting the tree provinces of the Study area. Domestic tourist's trend is not recorded.
Table B.2.5-1 Foreigners Arriving Number Year Artvin Erzurum Bayburt Turkey 1993 521,411 ╶ 6,525,202 1994 316,954 ╶ 6,695,705 1995 206,734 ╶ 7,747,389 1996 173,425 ╶ 8,536,778 1997 177,123 1,647 9,712,510 1998 199,609 1,538 9,431,280 1999 187,808 2,085 7,487,365 2000 175,202 1,348 10,428,153 *Data was obtained from General directrate of Public Security source : Statistical Yearbook of Turkey 2001(Artvin,Erzurum)
In the Study area has severe factors for tourism business such as might be not found of the tourist attraction of an international class, location on the northeast edge of Turkey, and
B - 72 inconvenience of a traffic access, and the accommodations maintenance might be insufficient, and so on. Therefore, visited foreign tourists were only 1.6% of the tourist to the entire Turkey.
B.2.5.2 Tourism resources and facilities
Recently, tourism development in world wide is remarkable in the background of globalization on all respects economic and politics etc, the development of communication system and traffic system, and changes people's outlook on value and lifestyles, etc.
Than before, the role of public site is growing in tourism promotion though the administration such as the private organization, governments, and municipalities becomes a big pillar.
However, the following problems will be face when the locality deems to develop by tourism. 1. Posture that country and municipality work on tourism promotion 2. Securing of budget and talent 3. Establishment of regional identity 4. Location of tourism as key industry in region 5. Promotion activity which clarifies object 6. Wide-area cooperation and cancellation of regional egoism 7. Consideration to senior citizen, physically handicapped person, and foreigner, etc. 8. Continued tourism promotion When thinking about the direction of tourism of the 21st century, the direction of the sustainable tourism style (alternative tourism) is forecast, such as eco-tourism, heritage tourism, and ethnical tourism, so on.
It is assumed to be the following items to be requested to tourism spot. 1. Making to individuality 2. Host and guest's familiarities 3. Necessity of interpreter of different culture 4. Environment and cultural creation peculiar to locality 5. Creation of entertainment culture Following resources may find in the Study area when searching with such criteria. 1. Unique scenery (bare land which goes to ruin is one unique individuality, too.) 2. Peculiar culture and environment to the Study area It is hoped that the area is activated by planning the tourism promotion thereafter inhabitant become richen and nature is abundant, green is abundant by whole Study area is networking done and improving software.
B - 73 B.3 IDENTIFYING CORE ISSUES
B.3.1 Watershed problems and their causes
Previous activities led by the Ministry of Forestry lead to a various good results in a field of forestry. However, it has a bunch of very real issues from the present conditions of watershed and forest area in the Study area. That is, the defective cadastre of forest area, break into forest area, illegal cutting, and the poverty of forest villagers. Therefore, soil erosion, flood, and environmental deterioration, etc. are problems in various locations. Way of dealing with such issues, afforestation, soil control and other measures go on in OGM and AGM in the Ministry of Forestry. In those various measures, high priority is given to the soil erosion control and the flood prevention measures. The forest degradation in watershed is remarkable like the Coruh watershed, the decision of an overall watershed management plan may be requested about the soil and the water conservation in the watershed which is based on the adjustment with the relating agencies and ministries.
Impeding Factors
1. Policy and Institutional Aspects (1) Lack of Planning and Management system of whole watershed (2) Lack of adequate land management system (3) Lack of support system by the country and/or the local administration (4) Lack of adequate water resources management
2. Human Aspects (1) Lack of recognition of whole watershed management (2) Lack of development human resources and research system (3) Lack of recognition of security in life
3. Natural Environmental Aspects (1) Low productive land and harsh climate conditions (2) Extensiveness denuded land
4. Technical Aspects (1) Lack of valuable information about water resources (2) Lack of valuable information about source origin of soil disaster in the catchment (3) Lack of valuable information concerning a rainfall and soil disaster
B.3.2 Impeding factors for Forestry
The forest consisting on a delicate balance under very harsh natural conditions (e.g. altitude roughly from 600m to 3000m, annual average participation from 300mm at Yusufeli to
B - 74 600mm at Artvin, lowest temperature becomes -30ºC while the highest exceeds 35ºC) had disappeared. The factors leading to this situation were deforestation caused by excessive grazing and firewood collection, and thereby bare land and/or grass land spreads out. Moreover, the soil is poor in nutrients and most of the hillsides have steep slope inclinations. For these reasons, the forests are only growing in little areas where only several tree species are seen. A large quantity of time and expenditure are necessary for re-greening under such conditions, and still yet, it may be difficult to get results of satisfactory. Most of the river water became turbid with soil and sand, considered as the influence of surface soil erosion. The water of the Coruh river is utilized for irrigation, fresh water fishery and the electric power generation use in the downstream area. The afforestation of the Study area serves as soil erosion control measures on the hillside. It is either used alone, or in coordination with other physical measures. Tree species are used for erosion control measures, and the usage of shrub is seen here and there. However, the usage of grass is not seen for these objects. The typical tree species used for erosion control projects are as follows. Pinus sylvestris, Picea orientalis, Robinia pseudacacia, Qurcus sp., Carpinus sp. The growth modes of the trees are not good due to severe natural conditions.
Key Issues
1. Recognition of the effects of deforestation under harsh natural condition 2. Proper forest management is necessary in the Study area 3. Various schemes for forest reproduction suitable for the Study area are necessary. 4. Integration of vegetation use in measures for erosion control 5. Understand natural environmental conditions on a scientific base 6. Measures based on the results of continuous monitoring are necessary. 7. Measures for preventing inflow of sedimentation into gullies and rivers are necessary. 8. The plant species for reforestation and/or the soil conservation measures are researched and it is necessary to maintain production and supply of the necessary amount seedling. 9. It is necessary to examine adequate erosion control measures (engineering works and vegetation) which suites the Study area. 10. It is necessary to examine an adequate measure for preventing outflow of the sedimentation in the gully and riverbed 11. It is necessary to examine the capability of fresh water fishery 12. It is necessary to examine the tourism plan for the huge area of the catchment for income-level improvement
B - 75 Impeding Factors
1. Policy and Institutional Aspects (1) Inappropriate forest management plan、such as lack of recognition of between natural environment and plant growth, (2) Deficiency of evaluation of measures effort (3) Lack of support system by the country and/or the local administration
2. Human Aspects (1) Lack of personal training (2) Lack of number of field worker (3) Lowness of skill level
3. Natural Environmental Aspects (1) Low productive land and harsh climate conditions (2) Extensiveness denuded land
4. Technical Aspects (1) Breakaway from the forest management system of exclusive devotion to wood production (2) Necessity of a forest management system based on multiple forests function (3) Necessity of a forest management system as ecosystem (4) Necessity of a forest management system in consideration of soil conservation (5) Necessity of a forest management system in consideration of water resources cultivation and conservation (6) Necessity of a forest management system in consideration of landscape and scenery (7) The selection of tree species and/or measurement method which matched a local characteristic (8) Necessity of forest and environmental education (9) Necessity of sustainable data collection system
B.3.3 Impeding factors for Freshwater fisheries
1.Policy and Institutional Aspects (1) Lack of support system by the local administration
2. Human Aspects (1) Lack of personal training and research facilities
3. Natural Environmental Aspects (1) Extensiveness catchment (2) Potential depending on view of the habits of freshwater fish
B - 76
4. Exogenous Aspects (1) Unestablished market (2) Ambiguity of a quantity of demand (3) Handy of distance to a main market
5. Technical Aspects (1) Unfamiliar culture technology
B.3.4 Impeding factors for Tourism
1. Policy and Institutional Aspects (1) Lack of support system by the country and/or the local administration
2. Human Aspects (1) Lack of gain momentum of build a tourist industry (2) Lack of human resources and tourism technology
3. Natural and Cultural Resources Aspects (1) Extensiveness area (2) Scattering / dispersion of tourist attractions (3) Insufficient quality, quantity of tourist attractions (4) Unimproved sightseeing-related institution and facilities (5) Absence of tourist attractions known by the world
4. Exogenous Aspects (1) Difficulty of a network with other sightseeing spots (2) Access problem (3)Lack of local identity
5. Technical Aspects (1) Lack of tourism analysis
B - 77 B.4 BASIC CONCEPTS AND PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
B.4.1 Basic concepts of Rehabilitation and Management of Natural Resources
B.4.1.1 Key Issues and basic idea concerning Vegetation and Forest (1) It is a given fact that is conserved existing vegetation. Because, the existing vegetation are lived on a delicate balance under very harsh natural conditions. (2) Forest conservation & erosion control measures is taken account of financial efficiency by using forest function. (3) It is a cardinal rule of preventing soil erosion to cover the ground with vegetation as early as possible. (4) Re-greening plan to bring interest and profit to the villagers
B.4.1.2 Concept plan for appropriate forest management (1) Normal forest; Restriction of forest resources use & Reconsideration of the Forest Management system (2) Degraded forest; Improvement of Forest composition and Reconsideration of the Forest Management system (3) Severely degraded forest; Concentrate working to soil erosion conservation (4) Related issues • Expansion & Improvement of the Nursery • Practice of Scientific research of natural conditions (e.g. Micro-meteorological condition, Soil erodibility, Plant community and Right planting condition) • Establishment of Scientific monitoring system • Proposition as to appropriate erosion and torrent control works • Proposal of Ornamental plant and floriculture product for new income source • Adequate measure for preventing outflow of the sedimentation in the gully and riverbed • Stabilized River channel by planting tree (e.g. Poplars, Salix)
B.4.1.3 Criteria for Rehabilitation and Management of the Natural Resources
With regard to selection and apply of kind of activities to area have dealt consideration of Table B.4.1-1, basically. In the case, have made reference the Slope Map, Vegetation Coverage Map, Re-vegetation Potential Map and the Forest Management Map which attached to Appendix.
B - 78 Table B.4.1-1 Criteria for Rehabilitation and Management of the Natural Resources Altitude/ Soil Timber line Actual Land use Inclination Imaginable Re-greening Action Erodibility (m)
Severe Forest conservation erodibility Natural regeneration 0-45% Moderate Adequate Forest management erodibility Natural regeneration Normal high forest Severe Forest conservation erodibility Natural regeneration >45% Moderate Forest conservation erodibility Natural regeneration
Severe Forest conservation erodibility Natural regeneration 0-45% Moderate Adequate Forest management erodibility Artificial seeding regeneration Degraded high forest land Severe Forest conservation SOIL EROSIN CONTROL <2400 (Fall off the mountainside) erodibility Natural regeneration >45% Moderate Forest conservation erodibility Natural regeneration
Severe Forest conservation erodibility Natural regeneration 0-45% Moderate Coppice rehabilitation & management erodibility Enrichement planting Degraded coppice land Severe Forest conservation erodibility Natural regeneration >45% Moderate Forest conservation erodibility Natural regeneration
Severe Pasuture improvement with soil erosion erodibility control measures 0-12% Moderate Pasuture improvement erodibility Afforestation by conventional method
Severe Silvi-Pastral / Fruits culture with soil erosion erodibility control measures 12-30% Silvi-Pastral / Fruits culture / Moderate Afforestation (hole+forest species planting) erodibility Afforestation (hole+local species mixed planting) Unwooded land Severe Grazing control erodibility Natural regeneration 30-45% Grazing control / Pasture improvement Moderate SOIL EROSIN CONTROL <2400 Re-greening (hole+shurub,harbaceous) erodibility (Fall off the mountainside) Re-greening (nursing block method) Severe Grazing control by fencing erodibility Natural regeneration >45% Moderate Grazing control erodibility Natural regeneration
0-12% Agriculture
12-30% Uplandcrops with soil erosion control measures Arable land 30-45% Silvi-Pastral / Fruits culture
Grazing control >45% Natural regeneration
B - 79
Severe Adequate Rangeland rehabilitation with soil erodibility erosion control measures by fencing 0-45% Moderate Adequate Rangeland management erodibility Pasture improvement Randeland Severe Grazing control by fencing erodibility Natural regeneration >45% Moderate Adequate Rangeland management SOIL EROSIN CONTROL <2400 (Fall off the mountainside) erodibility Pasture improvement
Severe Agriculture / Pasuture with soil erosion control erodibility measures 0-45% Moderate Agriculture / Pasuture erodibility Others Severe Protected actual land condition erodibility >45% Moderate Natural regeneration erodibility Protected actual land condition
>2400
UNFIXWD RIVER CHANNEL Unfixed River channel Riverside plantation
SHELTER BELT Hazard area Zonary plantation around settlement (anti-avalanche, windbreak, etc)
B.4.2 Proposed Activities
-Vegetative Works-
I. Soil Conservation
I-1 Natural Regeneration Appropriate sites • The sites of more than 45% inclination. • The sites that has severe erodibility at less than 45% inclination. Applications • To eliminate all interference by humankind and barn animal and entrust recovery of vegetation to the nature power. • To establish a fence in the outskirts of a site if it is necessary.
I-2Afforestation (type-1) Appropriate sites • The sites of less than 30% inclination and the surface soil layer are comparatively thick. • The moderate erodibility sites. Applications. • To planting seedling of forest tree species (e.g. Pinus sylvestris, Quercus sp., Robinia psedoacacia) on conventional terrace along contour line. • Planting density is 1,500 seedlings/ha.
B - 80 I-3 Afforestation (type-2) Appropriate sites • The sites of less than 30% inclination and the surface soil layer are moderately thin. • The moderate erodibility sites. Applications. • To planting seedling of local tree species (e.g. Betula sp., Carpinus sp., Fraxinus sp.,Jugras sp., Quercus sp.,Ostrya carpinifolia, Populus tremula ). • Planting density is 2,000 seedlings/ha. • Key point of planting. 1. To remove stone, about 60~70cm diameter fringe on planting point. 2. To dig 30cm diameter and a planting hole of around 25cm deep 3. To launder root and stone in a hole, and making flake a soil lump. 4. To rake soil in planting hole. 5. To widen a seedling root and put it in planting hole to moderately deepen. 6. To support a seedling in the left hand and put the soil which scraped out by the right hand around a root. 7. In this time, do not put a stone or a root in planting hole. 8. To plow slant of planting hole newly and give soil to a seedling. 9. To stamp around a seedling moderately. Mostly use plants The following trees can be regarded as main species in the Coruh catchment.
Picea orientalis Juniperus feetidissima Pinus sylvestris Ostrya carpinifelia Alnus glutinosa Populus tremula Betula pendula Quercus robur Betula medwediewii Quercus petraea Carpinus betulus Quercus cerris Carpinus orientalis Quercus vulcanica Celtis graglabrata Quercus ilex Fraxinus excelsior Robinia pseudoacacia Fraxinus augustifola Tilia tomentosa
Fraxinus ornus Tilia platyphllos
Jugras regia Tilia rubra
Juniperus oxycedrus
I-4 Re-greening (type-1) Appropriate sites • The sites of between 30% to 45% inclination and the surface soil layer are comparatively thin. • The moderate erodibility sites. Applications. • To planting seedling of local shrubs and grass species (e.g. Astragalus gummifer, Berberis sp., Crataegus sp., Ribes sp., Calicotome sp., Vicia sp.). • Planting density is 3,000 seedlings/ha. • Key point of planting.
B - 81 1. To remove stone, about 60~70cm diameter fringe on planting point. 2. To dig 30cm diameter and a planting hole of around 25cm deep 3. To launder root and stone in a hole, and making flake a soil lump. 4. To rake soil in planting hole. 5. To widen a seedling root and put it in planting hole to moderately deepen. 6. To support a seedling in the left hand and put the soil which scraped out by the right hand around a root. 7. In this time, do not put a stone or a root in planting hole. 8. To plow slant of planting hole newly and give soil to a seedling. 9. To stamp around a seedling moderately. Mostly use plants The following trees can be regarded as main species in the Coruh catchment.
Shrubs Amelanchiere rotundifolis subs. rotundifolia Genista albida Amelanchiere rotundifolis subs. integrifolia Genista tinctria Amygadalus fenzliana Genista pentica Astragalus microcephalus Irex colchica Astragalus gummifer Paliurus aculatus Astraphaxis spinosa Paliurus spinacristi Berberis vulgaris Prunus spinosa Berberis nummularia Pyracantha coccinea Berberis crategia Pyrus eleagnifolia Berberis integerrima Pyrus salicifolia Cerasus mahaleb Pyrus amygdaliformis Cistus creticus Ribes biebersteinii Cistus salvifolia Ribes kusnetzorii Colutea armene Rhamnnus pallasii Cornus mas Rhus coriaria Cornus sangninea Rubus canascens Cotinus coggygria Rosa canina Cotoneaster integerrimus Sorbus kusnetzorii Cotoneaster nummularia Sorbus roopiana Sorbus umbellate var. Crataegas pentagyna cretica Crataegus pontica Zyzyphus jujube
Herbage Avwna sterilis Cynodon dactylon Bromus sp. Eleagnus angustifolia Calicotome villosa Madicago sativa Calicotome spinosa Vicia sp. Cytisus villosus
B - 82
I-5 Re-greening (type-2) “Nurse Block” is the soil block which has penetrated hole centrally for extend a root system of tree to deepening in the ground, like a natural growing. And this block dig in a ground for do it a growing up base of tree. “Nurse Block” is made by soil + organic materials + anionic coagulant + resin. Appropriate sites • The sites of between 30% to 45% inclination and the surface soil layer are comparatively thin. • The moderate erodibility sites. • In particular, climate condition and soil condition are severe sites. Applications • To planting seed is Quercus species. • Density is 3,000 “Nurse Block” /ha. • Key point of planting. 1. To remove stone, about 60~70cm diameter fringe on planting point. 2. To dig 30cm diameter and a planting hole of around 25cm deep 3. To launder root and stone in a hole, and making flake a soil lump. 4. To rake soil in planting hole. 5. To put “Nurse Bloch” in hole, and sawing 3~5 seeds in each hole of “Nurse Block”. 6. To plow slant of planting hole newly and give soil to a seedling. Characteristic of Nurse Block methods • Surface water is maintained by block; therefore survival ration of plant will be increased. • Bring up drought resistant of plant due to extend root system to deepening in the ground by penetration hole of block. • The block is lightweight and hard to fail, and has advantage of carrying, application is easy Production method of Nurse Block. (1) To mix the soil and organic materials (e.g. marc of sugar beet, goat feces) in a ratio of 2:1. (2) To mix fertilizer of around 15g to soil 1 liter. (3) To mix 3g of anionic coagulant with 3g of resin, after that combine it and 20 liter’s water. (4) To mix 1.2 liter’s (3) solution and 10 liter’s soil. (5) To make block by the use of simple press machine and dry it on 2 ~ 3 days.
II. Afforestation Appropriate sites • The sites of less than 30% inclination and the surface soil layer are comparatively thick. • The moderate erodibility sites. Applications • To planting seedling of tree species (e.g. Pinus sylvestris, Quercus sp., Robinia psedoacacia) on conventional terrace along contour line. • May plant of suitable other trees species, if possible. • Planting density is 1,500 seedlings/ha.
B - 83 III. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest
III-1 Natural Regeneration Appropriate sites • The sites of more than 45% inclination. • The sites that has severe erodibility at less than 45% inclination. Applications • To eliminate all interference by humankind and barn animal and entrust recovery of vegetation to the nature power. • To establish a fence in the outskirts of a site if it is necessary.
III-2 Rehabilitation Appropriate sites • The sites of less than 45% inclination. Applications • Rejuvenation cutting • Thinning • Enrichment by planting seedlings
IV. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest IV-1 Natural Regeneration Appropriate sites • The sites of more than 45% inclination. • The sites that has severe erodibility at less than 45% inclination. Applications • To eliminate all interference by humankind and barn animal and entrust recovery of vegetation to the nature power. • To establish a fence in the outskirts of a site if it is necessary.
IV-2 Rehabilitation Appropriate sites • The sites of less than 45% inclination. Applications • Rejuvenation cutting • Thinning • Distribute seed for enrichment
V. Energy Forest Planting Appropriate sites • The sites of less than 30% inclination and the surface soil layer are comparatively thick, if possible. • The moderate erodibility sites. Applications • To planting seedling of first growing tree species (e.g. Poplus nigra, Eucalyptus sp., Acacia sp.) on a planting hole. • May plant of suitable other trees species, if possible. • Planting density is 1,500 seedlings/ha.
B - 84 VI. Rangeland Rehabilitation VI-1 Natural Regeneration Appropriate sites • The sites of more than 45% inclination. • The sites that has severe erodibility at less than 45% inclination. Applications • To eliminate all interference by humankind and barn animal and entrust recovery of vegetation to the nature power. • To establish a fence in the outskirts of a site if it is necessary.
VI-2 Rangeland Improvement Appropriate sites • The sites of less than 45% inclination. Applications • Control grazing, to establish a fence in the outskirts of a site if it is necessary. • Fertilizer application • Pasture grass seed sowing • Setting of water troughs and salt throus
VII. Riverside Plantation Applications. • Zigzag planting of Poplus nigra, Salix sp. and other suitable species to stabilize soils.
-Physical Works-
I. Gully Protection (Gabion type Gully Plug)
Gully plug is one of the sediment control barrier that is meant to mitigate gully erosion, by using a gabion (cage type mat). Gully plug can filter out permeating water freely. The function of Gully Plug is follow; 1. To prevent landslide 2. To control erosion and water/soil run-off 3. To improve the surrounding environment Technical consideration of Gully Plug construction 1. Circumferential land slope is less than 30% 2. Senseful catchments area is smaller than 10 ha 3. Maximum width and depth is 3m respectively 4. Length of plot is maximally 250 meters 5. Maximum plot slope gradient is 5% 6. To select suitable place for construction, such as tight shores, bed rock comes out at river bed, and narrowing place of river 7. To select the adequate construction site this is just downward meeting point with tributaries 8. To select the adequate construction site this is just downward slope collapse point or slope collapse hazard area 9. To select the adequate construction site this is downward of debris flow deposition zone 10. With regard to direction of dam, the outlet center should be at right angle to center
B - 85 line of downstream 11. With regard to the proposed slope of deposition surface, if river is composed from fine sand and gravel, the slope surface should be almost horizontal. 12. To have anchor for fixing gabions and prevention film of soil draw-out in place, if needed.
Standard Design
Cross section of Gully Plug (Gabion type) H=1.5m
Over view of Gully Plug
Standard Design of Gully Plug (Gabion type)
B - 86 Fill up stone in cage
Standard Design of Gabion (Cage type mat)
B - 87 B.4.3 Unit Cost
Table B.4.3-1 Unit Cost for Rehabilitation and Management of the Natural Resources ACTIVITY UNIT COST (Mil TL) 1. Soil Conservation 1.1 Natural regeneration Ha 64 1.2 Afforestation (type-1) Ha 1,806 1.3 Afforestation(type-2) Ha 2,060 1.4 Re-greening (type-1) Ha 2,892 1.5 Re-greening (type-2) Ha 2,615 1.6 Gully protection (Gabion type) 10 Units 5,418 1.7 Gully protection (Brush type) 10 Units 3,628
2. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest 2.1 Natural regeneration Ha 64 2.2 Rehabilitation Ha 1,254
3. Rehabilitation of Degrade Coppice Forest 3.1 Natural regeneration Ha 64 3.2 Rehabilitation Ha 1,096
4. Energy Forest Plantation Ha 1,686
5. Rangeland Rehabilitation 5.1 Natural regeneration Ha 64 5.2 Rangeland improvement Ha 520 5.3 Gully protection (Gabion type) 10 Units 5,418 5.4 Gully protection (Brush type) 10 Units 3,628
6. Riverside Plantation Ha 6,610
B - 88 B.4.4 Proposed relevant Activities
Table B.4.4-1 Training, Awareness, Capability Raising, Research, Demonstration, Technical Assistance ACTIVITY 1. Research of Disaster Mechanism 1.1 Meteorological Observation (Precipitation, Temperature) 1.2 Water Level Observation (Flow velocity, Flow volume, Water level) 1.3 Monitoring of Sedimentation Quantity, Quality () 2. Research of Local Species which for suited Erosion Control 2.1 Technical Assistance and Facilities Improvement of Nursery Works 3. Evaluation of Past Erosion Control Works 4. Formulation of Erosion Control Manual for Coruh catchment 5. On the Job Training of Erosion Control Planning and Technique 6. Environmental Education Local People and Students
B.4.5 Freshwater fisheries Concept plan • Practice of Scientific research of natural conditions (Water temp. & Water quality) • Selection of ideal fish species and to make fly production and distribution plan • Establishment of technical advice system • Marketing & Proposition of direct sales method involved with tourism Proposed Activities By socio-economic survey, the demand of refrigeration system of fresh fish and market development were given, but are hard to meet an activity of this study purpose.
B.4.6 Tourism Concept plan • Establishment of Eco-museum plan in the Study area & precinct • Establishment of Regional center (Information function, relaxation function, Regional products sales function and Snack function) & Network plan of truism resources in the Study area • Proposal of public information Proposed Activities • Research for Eco-truism potential • Research for Wildlife inventories
B - 89 B.5 Watershed Rehabilitation and Management Activities for Selected Micro-Catchments
B.5.1 The Micro-Catchment BT-04 Rehabilitation and Management Project
B.5.1.1 Condition of Micro-Catchments
(1) Location and Geographical Conditions of the MC The micro-catchments BT-04 (hereinafter to as the MC) is located in the north-eastern of the Coruh river basin, and constitutes the upper most catchments of the Berta river which is one of the major tributaries of the Coruh river. Total area of the MC is some 18,600 hectares. The MC is triangular shape with the apex in the north. The base length is approximately 15 km east to west and the height is some 20 km north to south. The MC consists of one tributary to the Berta river, the Hanli stream, the flow of which originates from the southern mountain range with its highest peak of 3,000m above sea level. The Hanli stream flows from south to north with the average incline of 1:10, and join the Berta river at some 7km west of Savsat municipality which is the main administrative center for the MC.
There is one notable tributary to the Hanli stream, the Cavdarli stream, the flow of which originates from the back of the Cevdarli village and joins the Hanli stream before it conjoins the Berta river. The altitude of the MC is between 800m and 3,000m above sea level. The MC is largely characterized by gentle topography with 30% of the land being between 0% and 12% of slope and 50% of the land between 12% and 30%. The climate in the MC is characteristically hot in summer and cold with snowfall in winter, and the mean annual rainfall is about 660 mm in Artvin, which is located about 50km south-western from Savsat and the provincial capital of Artvin to which the MC belongs. Despite of the relatively short distance from the main road D010 running along the northern border of the MC to Savsat, access to most of the villages in the MC is relatively hard due to narrow and poor condition of the road.
(2) Natural Resources and Present Land Use For the land use pattern of the MC, the dominant land use is transitional woodland and shrub (36%), followed by rangeland (30%), forest (26%), and arable land (7%) based on 2001 satellite image analysis data. According to the management plan, degraded high forest (BK) and degraded coppice forest (BBt) are dominant. The MC, located in the area with rather rich of natural habitats compared to the other areas of the Coruh catchments has no officially-designated Protected Areas within.
The dominant geological type is Upper Creatceous Volcanic Fcies, but in the southern part is dominantly A. The most common soils are Brown forest, high mountain pasture land soils, which are generally infertile and shallow. Based on the GDRS digital data, about 46% of the MC has Class 3 soil erosion (Severely), and most of the rest of the MC is in Class 2 (Moderately). Most areas needing rehabilitation for rangeland and degraded coppice forest have good potential, and some limited areas need erosion control. About 80% of the MC is in Land Capability Classes VI, VII and VIII by GDRS.
B - 90
B.5.1.2 Major problems, Development needs, Constraints and Opportunities
(1) Major problems:
• Destruction/degradation of forests by local people to meet their energy needs for heating and cooking.
Priority problems identified and possible solutions as suggested by villagers
Problems Solutions 1. Illicit cuttings and degradation of • Improvement and reforestation of degraded forests, forests. establishment of village energy forests on suitable sites. 2. High costs and inadequate knowledge • Provision of fuelwood needs of local people to the extent of alternative energy sources. possible, within the capacity of forests. • Provision of coal at suitable prices. • Assistance in testing/development of other energy sources, such as bio-energy, solar energy.
(2) Constrains on conservation, rehabilitation and suitable use of natural resources: • High dependency on excessive utilizations of upland resources. • Inadequate attention on local needs during preparation of forest • management plans. • Lack of confidence between villagers and governmental agencies. • Insufficient staff capacities of the MEF and other relevant government • agencies. • Insufficient collaboration among different government agencies. • Lack of adequate awareness of local communities about causes and consequencies of natural resources degradation and disasters. • Incomplete cadastral surveys and vague borders of the forests and rangelands. Unclear rights of AGM for working on OT (Forest soil without trees- Forest management plan) areas.
(3) Opportunities for conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use of natural resources: • Most areas needing rehabilitation have good potential. • The potential for better maintenance of standing coniferous forests and oak coppice forests depends on cooperation by villagers • The potential for better rangeland management will depend on MARA, and on cooperation between MARA, MEF and villagers. • Natural resources degradation is reversible by adopting appropriate approaches and methods. • There is growing interest in the MC villagers for collaborating with MEF-AGM for undertaking collaborative in conducting soil conservation and afforestation activities. • Existence of wide variety of multipurpose local tree, shrub and grass species for undertaking technically successful and socially acceptable rehabilitation activities.
B - 91 (4) Level of interest in natural resources conservation: Medium
(5) Current strategies and contributions of the government agencies: • Forest villagers in the MC are permitted to collect fuelwood from the forests depending on their capacity in the village area by paying modest charges to MEF-OGM. • MEF-ORKOY provides low interest credit support to forest villagers and cooperatives for increasing their income and for improving relations with the forest organization. • AGM, OGM and MPG contract protection of forest and wildlife conservation areas to forest village communities by making certain payments to village budget. AGM has also started recently contracting of soil conservation works and tending of such areas to the village communities that have interest and capacity for undertaking such activities. • Cadastre and border delineation works for range areas are being undertaken by MARA. • Stream bed and bank rehabilitation activities are being taken by GDRS and DSI. • Increased interest and efforts to involve local people in natural resources conservation and rehabilitation in combination with livelihood development among different units of MEF.
B - 92 B.5.1.3 Proposed activities
APPROX ACTIVITY LOCATION COMMENTS . AREA 1. Afforestation Cavdarli stream 133 ha
2. Rehabilitation of Degraded Coppice Forest (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Aradall stream (Hanli) 50 ha Implement Activities 1 and 2 (Activity 2): Rehabilitation Aradall stream (Kirecli) 52 ha Implement Activities 1 and 2 Civik, Karaagac strem 171 ha Implement Activities 1 and 2
3. Energy Forest Plantation Cavdarli stream (Ciftik) 150 ha Aradall stream (Kirecli) 40 ha
4. Rangeland Rehabilitation (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Aradall stream (Kirecli) 269 ha Implement Activities 1,2,3 and 4 (Activity 2): Rangeland improvement (Activity 3): Gully protection (gabion type) (Activity 4): Gully protection (brush type)
5. Riverside Plantation Cavdarli stream 0.4 ha (Cavdarli) Aradall stream (Hanli) 0.4 ha
DEFINITION OF ACTIVITIES; 1.Soil Conservation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Afforestation (type-1) Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species Afforestation (type-2) Plant local tree species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-1) Plant local shrub and grass species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-2) Plant Quercus species seed in a block Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (brush type) Gully plugging using brush walls 2. Afforestation Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species 3. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and enrich by planting Seedlings 4. Rehabilitation of Degraded Coppice Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and distribute seed for Enrichment 5. Energy Forest Plantation Planting of fast-growing species for fuelwood production 6. Rangeland Rehabilitation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rangeland improvement Controlled grazing, fertilizer applications, seed sowing and water troughs Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using brush walls Gully plugging (brush type) 7. Riverside Plantations Zigzag planting of poplars, willows and other suitable species to stabilize soils
B - 93 B.5.1.4 Activities, Effects, Benefits, Inputs and Cost for Project QUANTIFIED BENEFITS COST OF FOR VILLAGERS & QUANTITY INPUTS ACTIVITY OTHER STAKEHOLDERS OF INPUTS COMENTS Natural Resources 1. Afforestation -Declining soil erosion -Increasing both quality and -quantity of tree growing stock -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife 133 ha 240 BTL -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetics value of the landscape 3. Rehabilitation of -Decreasing soil erosion Activities include: Degraded Coppice -Increasing both quality and 1. Rehabilitation Forest quantity of tree growing stock 2. Natural regeneration -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife 273 ha 189 BTL -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape 3.Energy Forest -Decreasing soil erosion Plantation -Increasing vegetation coverage -Increasing both quality and quantity of tree stock -Increasing quantity of firewood subsidy -Decreasing illicit cutting for 190 ha 613 BTL firewood -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of the landscape. 4. Rangeland -Declining soil erosion Activities include: Rehabilitation -Increasing vegetation coverage 1. Natural regeneration -Increasing fodder production 2. Rangeland improvement -Ensuring better conditions 3. Gully plugging for wildlife 269 ha 219 BTL 4. Watering troughs -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape 5. Riverside -Protection of inhabitant’s Plantation livelihood and farmland -Environmental improvement 0.8 ha 5 BTL -Ensuring employment -Increasing aesthetics value of the landscape. 6.Riverbank -Protection of inhabitants’ Activity includes: Protection livelihood and farmland Construction of Riverbank 2,050 m 1,374 BTL -Ensuring satisfactory and protection (Gabion type). secured living conditions. H=1.0m Sub-total cost 2,640 BTL
B - 94 B.5.2 The Micro-Catchment MC-03 Rehabilitation and Management Project
B.5.2.1 Condition of Micro-Catchment
(1) Location and Geographical Conditions of the MC The micro-catchments MC-03 (hereinafter to as the MC) is located in the central part of the Coruh river basin with the area of some 21,600 hectares. It extends in the south of the Yusufeli municipality which is the center of the Yusufeli district to which the MC belongs. The MC is approximately 22 km long east to west and 23 km wide north to south. The Coruh river forms the northern boundary of the MC, which is characterized by extremely rocky and steep topography, especially along the gorge of the Coruh river. The Coruh river moderately flows down at the mean incline of 1:85. The altitude of the MC is between 600m and 3,000m above sea level. There are 8 significant tributaries in the MC: the Kavus, Buyukkotenek, Vardenet, Sekisel, Balsuyu, Kilickaya, Ardere, and Hapishor streams, which often cause floods, are fast forming deeply dissected valleys. For example, the Hapishor stream, which originates near the southern border of the MC, flows down to the north and join the Coruh river with average incline of 1:5.
The MC is largely characterized by very steep topography with 20% of the land being over 45% of slope and less than 10% of the land between 0% - 12%. The climate in the MC varies according to the altitude. Lower area along the Coruh river is very hot and very dry in summer and relatively warm in winter due to the micro climate, which allows local people to grow various kinds of crops in winter. The mean annual temperature is 15.0℃, the mean maximum temperature is 26.3 ℃ (August), the mean minimum temperature is 3.8℃ (January) and the mean annual rainfall is about 300 mm in Yusufeli (Elevation, 611m). Access to Kilickaya and Celtikduzu is good or adequate as the villages located relatively near the asphalted road D050, but most on the other villages in the MC is difficult in general due to the steep topography, for example, the road is long and terrible to access Bakietepe, and inferior to Alanbasi.
(2) Natural Resources and Present Land Use For the land use pattern of the MC, the dominant land use is forest (44%), followed by rangeland (21%), arable land (18%), and others (14%) based on 2001 satellite image analysis data. According to the management plan, xx% is high forest (type NK), and most of the remaining area is degraded high forest (BK). There is some degraded coppice forest (BBt) area. The northern end of the MC, starting from around Irmakyani, which is slightly out of the MC, is designated as a wild life conservation area spreading northward beyond the MC and border forming a habitat for hooked horn wild goats.
The dominant geological type is Eocene Volcanic Fcies and Eocene Flysh, but in the northern part is dominantly Y. The most common soils are Brown forest soils, which are generally infertile and shallow. Based on the GDRS digital data, about 65% of the MC has Class 3 soil erosion (severely), and most of the rest of the MC is in Class 2 (Moderately). Potential for rehabilitation of soil disasters are generally poor, due to the severe constrains. All streams are delivering large quantities of debris to the Coruh
B - 95 and Tortum River, and the streams join the Tortum river are generally turbid. About 96% of the MC is in Land Capability Classes VI, VII and VIII by GDRS.
B.5.2.2 Major problems, Development needs, Constraints and Opportunities
(1) Major problems: • Natural disaster (e.g. floods) and soil erosion due to fragile site (e.g. geology, soil, topography) and over-use/degradation of forest and range resources. • Destruction/degradation of forests by local people to meet their energy needs for heating and cooking.
Priority problems identified and possible solutions as suggested by villagers
Problems Solutions 1. Natural disasters (e.g. floods, • Soil conservation measures on degraded area. avalanches, landslides). 2. Soil erosion, de-regulation and losses of water resources. 3. Illicit cuttings and degradation of • Improvement and reforestation of degraded forests, forests. establishment of village energy forests on suitable sites. 4. High costs and inadequate knowledge • Provision of fuelwood needs of local people to the extent of alternative energy sources. possible, within the capacity of forests. • Provision of coal at suitable prices. • Assistance in testing/development of other energy sources, such as bio-energy, solar energy. 5. Degradation, low productivity, • Range improvement measures (e.g. water troughs, under-utilization of range resources. re-seeding, fertilization). • Development of forage production on suitable lands. Supporting/development of stall-feeding.
(2) Constrains on conservation, rehabilitation and suitable use of natural resources: • Extremely steep and unstable slopes, especially in the gorge of the Coruh River. • Shallow soils and very dry climates. • Variable, but often severe, village opposition to involvement in erosion control work. • Degraded conditions and low productivity of the significant parts of the forest resources. • High dependency on excessive utilizations of upland resources. • Inadequate attention on local needs during preparation of forest management plans. • Lack of confidence between villagers and governmental agencies. • Insufficient staff capacities of the MEF and other relevant government agencies. • Insufficient collaboration among different government agencies. • Lack of adequate awareness of local communities about causes and consequencies of natural resources degradation and disasters. • Incomplete cadastral surveys and vague borders of the forests and rangelands. Unclear rights of AGM for working on OT (Forest soil without trees- Forest management plan) areas.
B - 96
(3) Opportunities for conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use of natural resources • The potential for rehabilitation is restricted by the extremely harsh conditions and by opposition from villagers. • Some potential for oak coppice treatments, improved grazing control. • There is growing interest in the MC villagers for collaborating with MEF-AGM for undertaking collaborative in conducting soil conservation and afforestation activities. • Existence of wide variety of multipurpose local tree, shrub and grass species for undertaking technically successful and socially acceptable rehabilitation activities.
(4) Level of interest in natural resources conservation: Medial Low
(5) Current strategies and contributions of the government agencies: • Forest villagers in the MC are permitted to collect fuelwood from the forests depending on their capacity in the village area by paying modest charges to MEF-OGM. • MEF-ORKOY provides low interest credit support to forest villagers and cooperatives for increasing their income and for improving relations with the forest organization. • AGM, OGM and MPG contract protection of forest and wildlife conservation areas to forest village communities by making certain payments to village budget. AGM has also started recently contracting of soil conservation works and tending of such areas to the village communities that have interest and capacity for undertaking such activities. • Cadastre and border delineation works for range areas are being undertaken by MARA. • Stream bed and bank rehabilitation activities are being taken by GDRS and DSI. • Increased interest and efforts to involve local people in natural resources conservation and rehabilitation in combination with livelihood development among different units of MEF.
B - 97 B.5.2.3 Proposed activities
APPROX ACTIVITY LOCATION COMMENTS . AREA 1. Soil Conservation (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Selisel, Balsuyu stream 150 ha Implement Activities 1,4,5,6 and 7 (Activity 2): Afforestation, (Type 1) Hapisor stream 531 ha Implement Activities 1,3,4,5,6 and 7 (Activity 3): Afforestation, (Type 2) Kilickaya stream 150 ha Implement Activities 1,4,5,6 and 7 (Activity 4): Re-greening (Type 1) (Activity 5): Re-greening (Type 2) (Activity6): Gully protection (gabion type) (Activity 7): Gully protection (brush type)
2. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Hapisor stream 838 ha Implement Activities 1 and 2 (Activity 2): Rehabilitation
3. Rangeland Rehabilitation (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Hapisor stream 394 ha Implement Activities 1,2,3 and 4 (Activity 2): Rangeland improvement (Activity 3): Gully protection (gabion type) (Activity 4): Gully protection (brush type)
DEFINITION OF ACTIVITIES; 1.Soil Conservation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Afforestation (type-1) Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species Afforestation (type-2) Plant local tree species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-1) Plant local shrub and grass species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-2) Plant Quercus species seed in a block Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (brush type) Gully plugging using brush walls 2. Afforestation Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species 3. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and enrich by planting Seedlings 4. Rehabilitation of Degraded Coppice Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and distribute seed for Enrichment 5. Energy Forest Plantation Planting of fast-growing species for fuelwood production 6. Rangeland Rehabilitation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rangeland improvement Controlled grazing, fertilizer applications, seed sowing and water troughs Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using brush walls Gully plugging (brush type) 7. Riverside Plantations Zigzag planting of poplars, willows and other suitable species to stabilize soils
B - 98 B.5.2.4 Activities, Effects, Benefits, Inputs and Cost for Project
QUANTIFIED BENEFITS COST OF QUANTITY OF ACTIVITY FOR VILLAGERS & INPUTS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS INPUTS COMENTS Natural Resources 1. Soil Conservation -Decreasing soil erosion Activities include: -Increasing vegetation coverage 1. Natural regeneration -Ensuring better conditions for 2. Afforestation wildlife 3. Re-greening 831 ha 1,063 BTL -Ensuring employment 4. Gully plugging -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of the landscape. 2. Rehabilitation of -Decreasing soil erosion Activities include: Degraded High -Increasing both quality and 1. Rehabilitation Forest quantity of tree growing stock 2. Natural regeneration -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife 838 ha 352 BTL -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of the landscape. 3. Rangeland -Declining soil erosion Activities include: Rehabilitation -Increasing vegetation coverage 1. Natural regeneration -Increasing fodder production 2. Rangeland improvement -Ensuring better conditions for 3. Gully plugging wildlife 394 ha 269 BTL 4. Watering troughs -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape Sub-total cost 1,684 BTL
B - 99 B.5.3 The Micro-Catchment TR-06 Rehabilitation and Management Project
B.5.3.1 Condition of Micro-Catchment
(1) Location and Geographical Conditions of the MC The micro-catchments TR-06 (hereinafter to as the MC) is located roughly south-eastern of the Coruh river basin, and constitutes a part of the middle catchments of the Tortum river which is one of the major tributaries of the Coruh river, and the Tortum lake adjoin with the west boundary of the MC. Total area of the MC is some 30,700 hectares. The main administrative center for the MC is Uzundere municipality, it is located roughly south-west in the MC. The MC is approximately 21 km long east to west and 36 km wide north to south. The Tortum river forms the western boundary of the MC, which is characterized by extremely steep bald mountains, especially along the Torutum lake. The Tortum river moderately flows down at the mean incline of 1:55. The altitude of the MC is between 800m and 3,000m above sea level. The MC consists of 5 significant tributaries to the Tortum river: the Cevizli, Kilizli, Sapaca, Uzun, and Tasbasi streams.
The MC is characterized by extremely steep bare rocky slopes with active natural erosion and slides, especially along the Cevizli, Kilizli, and Sapaca streams. The MC has 33% of severe slope land and 26% of very severe slope land. There is 30% of Moderate slope land, too. The climate is characteristically hot in summer and cold with snowfall in winter. The mean annual temperature is 8.3℃, the mean maximum temperature is 19.6 ℃ (July), the mean minimum temperature is -3.4℃ (January) and the mean annual rainfall is about 430 mm. Access to most of the villages in the MC is good or adequate as the villages located relatively near the asphalted road D950, which runs north and south along the Coruh river, but very poor to Cevizli.
(2) Natural Resources and Present Land Use For the land use pattern of the MC, the dominant land use is rangeland (37%), followed by forest (28%), arable land (19%), and others (14%) based on 2001 satellite image analysis data. According to the management plan, xx% is high forest (type NK), and most of the remaining area is degraded high forest (BK). There is seldom normal coppice forest (Bt) and some area of degraded coppice forest (BBt) are present. The Tortum lake consists a feature of the MC with its relatively large area of still water and Tortum fall, being a major tourist/recreational spot of the area. There are no officially-designated Protected Areas in the MC at present, but area Tortum lake along with its surroundings has been recently applied for its registration as a nature park, and is deemed to be designated in the near future.
The dominant geological type is Eocene Volcanic Fcies, but in the eastern part is dominantly Malm and in the western part is dominated K. The most common soils are Brown forest, which are generally infertile and shallow. Based on the GDRS digital data, about 40% of the MC has Class 4 soil erosion (Very severely), and most of the rest of the MC is in Class 3 (Severely). Potential for rehabilitation of soil disasters are generally poor, due to the severe constrains. The Cevizli, Kilizli, ans Sapaca streams are
B - 100 delivering large quantities of debris to the Tortum River, and the streams are generally clear. About 97% of the MC is in Land Capability Classes VI, VII and VIII by GDRS.
B.5.3.2 Major problems, Development needs, Constraints and Opportunities
(1) Major problems: • Natural disaster (e.g. floods, avalanche) and soil erosion due to fragile site (e.g. geology, soil, topography) and over-use/degradation of forest and range resources. • Destruction/degradation of forests by local people to meet their energy needs for heating and cooking. • Insufficient rangeland
Priority problems identified and possible solutions as suggested by villagers
Problems Solutions 1. Natural disasters (e.g. floods, avalanches). • Soil conservation measures on degraded area. 2. Soil erosion, de-regulation and losses of water resources. 3. Illicit cuttings and degradation of forests. • Improvement and reforestation of degraded 4. High costs and inadequate knowledge of forests, establishment of village energy forests alternative energy sources. on suitable sites. • Provision of fuelwood needs of local people to the extent possible, within the capacity of forests. • Provision of coal at suitable prices. Assistance in testing/development of other energy sources, such as bio-energy, solar energy. 5. Degradation, low productivity, under-utilization • Range improvement measures (e.g. water of range resources. troughs, re-seeding, fertilization). • Development of forage production on suitable lands. Supporting/development of stall-feeding.
(2) Constrains on conservation, rehabilitation and suitable use of natural resources: • Extremely steep bare rocky slopes with active natural erosion and landslides. • Frequent severe flash floods and considerable movement of coarse rocky debris in streambed. • Degraded conditions and low productivity of the significant parts of the forest resources. • High dependency on excessive utilizations of upland resources. • Inadequate attention on local needs during preparation of forest management plans. • Lack of confidence between villagers and governmental agencies. • Insufficient staff capacities of the MEF and other relevant government agencies. • Insufficient collaboration among different government agencies. • Lack of adequate awareness of local communities about causes and consequencies of natural resources degradation and disasters.
B - 101 • Incomplete cadastral surveys and vague borders of the forests and rangelands. Unclear rights of AGM for working on OT (Forest soil without trees- Forest management plan) areas.
(3) Opportunities for conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use of natural resources • Reversibility of natural resources degradation is generally poor, due to the severe constrains. • Need for civil works to prevent gully erosion in selected area. • There is growing interest in the MC villagers for collaborating with MEF-AGM for undertaking collaborative in conducting soil conservation and afforestation activities.
(4) Level of interest in natural resources conservation: Medium
(5) Current strategies and contributions of the government agencies: • MEF-AGM has conducted some soil conservation activities on modest scale in the MC areas, including Sapaca, Altincanak, Kirazli, Cagalyan and Cevizli villages during previous years. • Forest villagers in the MC are permitted to collect fuelwood from the forests depending on their capacity in the village area by paying modest charges to MEF-OGM. • MEF-ORKOY provides low interest credit support to forest villagers and cooperatives for increasing their income and for improving relations with the forest organization. • AGM, OGM and MPG contract protection of forest and wildlife conservation areas to forest village communities by making certain payments to village budget. AGM has also started recently contracting of soil conservation works and tending of such areas to the village communities that have interest and capacity for undertaking such activities. • Cadastre and border delineation works for range areas are being undertaken by MARA. • Stream bed and bank rehabilitation activities are being taken by GDRS and DSI. • Increased interest and efforts to involve local people in natural resources conservation and rehabilitation in combination with livelihood development among different units of MEF.
B - 102 B.5.3.3 Proposed activities
ACTIVITY LOCATION APPROX COMMENTS . AREA 1. Soil Conservation (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Near Caglayan 405 ha Implement Activities 1,3,6 and 7 (Activity 2): Afforestation, (Type 1) Upper Kilizli stream 111 ha Implement Activities 1,5,6 and 7 (Activity 3): Afforestation, (Type 2) Near Altincanak 279 ha Implement Activities 1,3,6 and 7 (Activity 4): Re-greening (Type 1) Near Sapaca 365 ha Implement Activities 1,3,6 and 7 (Activity 5): Re-greening (Type 2) (Activity6): Gully protection (gabion type) (Activity 7): Gully protection (brush type)
2. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Upper Armust stream 172 ha Implement Activities 1 and 2 (Activity 2): Rehabilitation
3. Rangeland Rehabilitation (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Upper Kilizli stream 175 ha Implement Activities 1,2,3 and 4 (Activity 2): Rangeland improvement (Activity 3): Gully protection (gabion type) (Activity 4): Gully protection (brush type)
4. Riverside Plantation Kilizli stream 0.2 ha Sapaca stream 0.2 ha Cevizli stream (Cevizli) 0.2 ha
DEFINITION OF ACTIVITIES; 1.Soil Conservation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Afforestation (type-1) Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species Afforestation (type-2) Plant local tree species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-1) Plant local shrub and grass species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-2) Plant Quercus species seed in a block Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (brush type) Gully plugging using brush walls 2. Afforestation Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species 3. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and enrich by planting Seedlings 4. Rehabilitation of Degraded Coppice Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and distribute seed for Enrichment 5. Energy Forest Plantation Planting of fast-growing species for fuelwood production 6. Rangeland Rehabilitation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rangeland improvement Controlled grazing, fertilizer applications, seed sowing and water troughs Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using brush walls Gully plugging (brush type) 7. Riverside Plantations Zigzag planting of poplars, willows and other suitable species to stabilize soils
B - 103 B.5.3.4 Activities, Effects, Benefits, Inputs and Cost for Project
QUANTIFIED BENEFITS ACTIVITY FOR VILLAGERS & QUANTITY COST OF COMENTS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS OF INPUTS INPUTS Natural Resources 1. Soil -Decreasing soil erosion Activities include: Conservation -Increasing vegetation 1. Natural regeneration coverage 2. Afforestation -Ensuring better conditions 3. Re-greening for wildlife 1,160ha 1,105 BTL 4. Gully plugging -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of the landscape. 2. Rehabilitation of -Decreasing soil erosion Activities include: Degraded High -Increasing both quality and 1. Rehabilitation Forest quantity of tree growing 2. Natural regeneration stock -Ensuring better conditions 172ha 93 BTL for wildlife -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of the landscape. 3. Rangeland -Declining soil erosion Activities include: Rehabilitation -Increasing vegetation 1. Natural regeneration coverage 2. Rangeland improvement -Increasing fodder production 3. Gully plugging -Ensuring better conditions 4. Watering troughs 175ha 189 BTL for wildlife -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape 4. Riverside -Protection of inhabitant’s Plantation livelihood and farmland -Environmental improvement 0.6 ha 4 BTL -Ensuring employment -Increasing aesthetics value of the landscape. 5. Riverbank -Protection of inhabitants’ Activity includes: Enforcement livelihood and farmland 2,010 BTL Construction of Riverbank 3,000 m -Ensuring satisfactory and protection (Gabion type). secured living conditions. H=1.0m Sub-total cost 3,401 BTL
B - 104 B.5.4 The Micro-Catchment UC-14 Rehabilitation and Management Project
B.5.4.1 Condition of Micro-Catchment
(1) Location and Geographical Conditions of the MC The micro-catchments UC-14 (hereinafter referred to as the MC) is located south of Ispir municipality, which is the main administrative centre for the MC. The MC is approximately 20 km long east to west and 27 km wide north to south. Total area of the MC is some 31,200 hectares. The Coruh River forms the northwestern boundary of the MC, which is characterized by extremely steep land around most villages, except the rolling rangelands at Numanpasa. The Chorh river serenely flows down at the mean incline of 1:110. The altitude of the MC is between 1,000m and 3,100m above sea level. The MC consists of 6 significant tributaries to the Coruh river: the Goc, Gurulek, Bulanik, Asagullubag, Sehir and Kopruk streams. The MC has 43% of moderate land, and most of the rest is steep. There are few areas of flat colluvial soils. The climate is characteristically hot in summer and cold with snowfall in winter. Access to most of the villages in the MC is poor without to Koprukpoy, from the asphalted road D050, which runs north-eastern and south-western along the Coruh river.
(2) Natural Resources and Present Land Use For the land use pattern of the MC, the dominant land use is rangeland (44%), followed by arable land (22%), forest (16%), transitional woodland and shrub (8%), and others (10%) based on 2001 satellite image analysis data. According to the management plan, xx% is high forest (type NK), and most of the remaining area is degraded high forest (BK). There are small areas of normal coppice forest (Bt) and degraded coppice forest (BBt) at the back of Kockoy. The northern end of the MC, starting from the north of Gockoy is designated as the Ispir-Vercenik Dagi wild life protection area, spreading northward beyond the MC and border forming a habitat for hooked-horn wild goats.
The predominant geological type is Eocene, Volcanic Facies except in the southern part, which is predominantly Lias and Malm. The most common soils are chestnut soils, Brown forest soils, and Basaltic soils, which are generally infertile and shallow. Based on the GDRS digital about 43% of the MC has Class 2 soil erosion (moderately), and most of the rest of the MC is in Class 3 (severely). The visible soil erosion is reversible using conventional techniques, except on steep slopes. Moreover, very little may be done to avoid or mitigate mass movements. With regard to large areas of rangelands, effective grazing control may certainly mitigate erosion on moderate and even steep slopes. About 87% of the MC is in Land Capability Classes VI, VII and VIII by GDRS.
B.5.4.2 Major problems, Development needs, Constraints and Opportunities
(1) Major problems: • Natural disaster (e.g. floods) and landslide due to fragile site (e.g. geology, soil, topography) and over-use/degradation of forest and range resources. • Destruction/degradation of forests by local people to meet their energy needs for heating and cooking.
B - 105 Priority problems identified and possible solutions as suggested by villagers
Problems Solutions 1. Natural disasters (e.g. floods, landslides). • Soil conservation measures on degraded area. 2. Soil erosion, de-regulation and losses of water • Riverbed rehabilitation (civil engineering resources. measures), river bank rehabilitation (civil engineering structures, gulley plantation). 3. Illicit cuttings and degradation of forests. • Improvement and reforestation of degraded 4. High costs and inadequate knowledge of forests, establishment of village energy forests alternative energy sources. on suitable sites. • Provision of fuelwood needs of local people to the extent possible, within the capacity of forests. • Provision of coal at suitable prices. Assistance in testing/development of other energy sources, such as bio-energy, solar energy. 5. Degradation, low productivity, under-utilization • Range improvement measures (e.g. water of range resources. troughs, re-seeding, fertilization). • Development of forage production on suitable lands. Supporting/development of stall-feeding.
(2) Constrains on conservation, rehabilitation and suitable use of natural resources: • Extremely steep land around most villages, except the rolling rangelands at Numanpasa. • Generally erodible soils if bad managed. • Degraded conditions and low productivity of the significant parts of the forest resources. • High dependency on excessive utilizations of upland resources. • Inadequate attention on local needs during preparation of forest management plans. • Lack of confidence between villagers and governmental agencies. • Insufficient staff capacities of the MEF and other relevant government agencies. • Insufficient collaboration among different government agencies. • Lack of adequate awareness of local communities about causes and consequencies of natural resources degradation and disasters. • Incomplete cadastral surveys and vague borders of the forests and rangelands. Unclear rights of AGM for working on OT (Forest soil without trees- Forest management plan) areas.
(3) Opportunities for conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use of natural resources • Quite promising nature disaster conservation by using conventional methods. • Need for civil works to prevent stream bank enforcement in selected area. • Need for effective grazing control. • Villagers’ eagerness to tackle with natural disasters. • There is growing interest in the MC villagers for collaborating with MEF-AGM for undertaking collaborative in conducting soil conservation and afforestation activities.
B - 106 • Existence of wide variety of multipurpose local tree, shrub and grass species for undertaking technically successful and socially acceptable rehabilitation activities.
(4) Level of interest in natural resources conservation: High
(5) Current strategies and contributions of the government agencies: • MEF-AGM has conducted some soil conservation activities on modest scale in the MC areas, along the Kopru stream during previous years. • Forest villagers in the MC are permitted to collect fuelwood from the forests depending on their capacity in the village area by paying modest charges to MEF-OGM. • MEF-ORKOY provides low interest credit support to forest villagers and cooperatives for increasing their income and for improving relations with the forest organization. • AGM, OGM and MPG contract protection of forest and wildlife conservation areas to forest village communities by making certain payments to village budget. AGM has also started recently contracting of soil conservation works and tending of such areas to the village communities that have interest and capacity for undertaking such activities. • Cadastre and border delineation works for range areas are being undertaken by MARA. • Stream bed and bank rehabilitation activities are being taken by GDRS and DSI. • Increased interest and efforts to involve local people in natural resources conservation and rehabilitation in combination with livelihood development among different units of MEF.
B - 107 B.5.4.3 Proposed activities
APPROX. ACTIVITY LOCATION COMMENTS AREA 1. Soil Conservation (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Middle Goc stream 100 ha Implement Activities 1, 3,4, 6 and 7 (Activity 2): Afforestation, (Type 1) Upper Goc stream 126 ha Implement Activities 1, 3,4, 6 and 7 (Activity 3): Afforestation, (Type 2) Middle Kopruk stream 396 ha Implement Activities 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 (Activity 4): Re-greening (Type 1) Near Koprukoy 106 ha Implement Activities 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 (Activity 5): Re-greening (Type 2) (Activity6): Gully protection (gabion type) (Activity 7): Gully protection (brush type)
2. Afforestation Near Durukoy 93 ha Pine plantation
3. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Upper Kopruk stream 157 ha Implement Activities 1 and 2 (Activity 2): Rehabilitation
4. Rehabilitation of Degraded Coppice Forest (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Middle Kopruk stream 108 ha Implement Activities 1 and 2 (Activity 2): Rehabilitation Upper Kopruk stream 99 ha Implement Activities 1 and 2
5. Energy Forest Plantation Deglirmexli stream 140 ha (Durkoy) Bulanik stream 186 ha (Numanpasa) Yayla stream (Kockoy) 93 ha
6. Rangeland Rehabilitation (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Upper Kopruk stream 558 ha Implement Activities 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Activity 2): Rangeland improvement Bulanik stream 100 ha Implement Activities 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Activity 3): Gully protection (gabion type) (Activity 4): Gully protection (brush type)
DEFINITION OF ACTIVITIES; 1.Soil Conservation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Afforestation (type-1) Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species Afforestation (type-2) Plant local tree species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-1) Plant local shrub and grass species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-2) Plant Quercus species seed in a block Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (brush type) Gully plugging using brush walls 2. Afforestation Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species 3. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and enrich by planting Seedlings 4. Rehabilitation of Degraded Coppice Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and distribute seed for Enrichment 5. Energy Forest Plantation Planting of fast-growing species for fuelwood production 6. Rangeland Rehabilitation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rangeland improvement Controlled grazing, fertilizer applications, seed sowing and water troughs Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (brush type) Gully plugging using brush walls 7. Riverside Plantations Zigzag planting of poplars, willows and other suitable species to stabilize soils
B - 108 B.5.4.4 Activities, Effects, Benefits, Inputs and Cost for Project QUANTIFIED BENEFITS FOR ACTIVITY VILLAGERS & OTHER QUANTITY COST OF COMENTS STAKEHOLDERS OF INPUTS INPUTS Natural Resources 1. Soil Conservation -Decreasing soil erosion Activities include: -Increasing vegetation coverage 1.Natural regeneration -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife 2. Afforestation 728 ha 817 BTL -Ensuring employment 3. Re-greening -Improving water balance 4. Gully plugging -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape. 2. Afforestation -Decreasing soil erosion -Increasing vegetation coverage -Increasing both quality and quantity of tree stock -Increasing biodiversity 93 ha 168 BTL -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape. 3. Rehabilitation of -Decreasing soil erosion Activities include: Degraded High -Increasing both quality and quantity of 1. Rehabilitation Forest tree growing stock 2. Natural regeneration -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife 157ha 48 BTL -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape. 4. Rehabilitation of -Decreasing soil erosion Activities include: Degraded Coppice -Increasing both quality and 1. Rehabilitation Forest quantity of tree growing stock 2. Natural regeneration -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife 207ha 57 BTL -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape 5. Energy Forest -Decreasing soil erosion Plantation -Increasing vegetation coverage -Increasing both quality and quantity of tree stock -Increasing quantity of firewood subsidy 225 ha 726 BTL -Decreasing illicit cutting for firewood -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape. 6. Rangeland -Declining soil erosion Activities include: Rehabilitation -Increasing vegetation coverage 1. Natural regeneration -Increasing fodder production 2. Rangeland improvement -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife 658ha 374 BTL 3. Gully plugging -Ensuring employment 4. Watering troughs -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape Sub-total cost 2,190 BTL
B - 109 B.5.5 The Micro-Catchment UC-03 Rehabilitation and Management Project
B.5.5.1 Condition of Micro-Catchment
(1) Location and Geographical Conditions of the MC The micro-catchments UC-03 (hereinafter to as the MC) is located roughly western part and near the riverhead of the Coruh river basin. Total area of the MC is some 21,900 hectares. It extends in the east of the Bayburt municipality which is the capital of the Bayburt province to which the MC belongs. The MC is approximately 34 km long east to west and 10 km wide north to south. The Coruh river and it’s tributary Masat river forms the southern border of the MC, which serenely flows down at the mean incline of 1:140. The altitude of the MC is between 1,300m and 2,700m above sea level.
The MC consists of 5 significant tributaries to the Coruh and Masat river: the Buyuk, Latrans, Kuru, Gez, and Ahsunicler streams. The MC is characterized by relatively gentle topography, especially near the northern boundary of the MC forme huge extents of alpine pasture land with better conditions. . However, along the southern boundary of the MC consists of south facing large-scale bald mountains with the relative height of about 500m. The MC has 41% of moderate slope land and 25% of severe slope land. There is 8% of Steep slope land, too.
The climate is characteristically moderate in summer and very cold with snowfall in winter. The mean annual temperature is 6.5℃, the mean maximum temperature is 18.8 ℃ (July), the mean minimum temperature is -7.1 ℃ (January) and the mean annual rainfall is about 420 mm based on metrological record in Bayburt. Access to most of the villages in the MC is good and adequate as the villages located relatively near the asphalted road D915, which runs west and east along the Coruh river.
(2) Natural Resources and Present Land Use For the land use pattern of the MC, the dominant land use is rangeland (74%), followed by arable land (11%), forest (6%) and transitional woodland and shrub (6%) based on 2001 satellite image analysis data. According to the management plan, there is seldom high forest (type NK), and most of the remaining area is degraded high forest (BK). There are some areas of normal coppice forest (Bt) or degraded coppice forest (BBt). There are no officially-designated Protected Areas in the MC at present, but a forest recreation area is planned to be established southeast of Gezkoy. The existence of wild boars is indicated by the villagers as they harm agricultural production by crop fields.
The predominant geological type is Lower Cretaceous, except in the northern part, which are predominantly Lias and Malm. The most common soils are Brown forest soils, which are generally infertile and shallow. Based on the GDRS digital data, about 62% of the MC has Class 3 soil erosion (Severely), and most of the rest of the MC is in Class 2 (Moderately). Most of the area under the good condition but grazing control will be needed due to shallow soils, in particular, for predominant south-facing slopes along the
B - 110 southern boundary. About 89% of the MC is in Land Capability Classes VI, VII and VIII by GDRS.
B.5.5.2 Major problems, Development needs, Constraints and Opportunities
(1) Major problems: • Natural disaster (e.g. floods) and soil erosion due to fragile site (e.g. geology, soil, topography) and over-use/degradation of forest and range resources. • Destruction/degradation of forests by local people to meet their energy needs for heating and cooking.
Priority problems identified and possible solutions as suggested by villagers
Problems Solutions 1. Natural disasters (e.g. floods). • Soil conservation measures on degraded area. 2. Soil erosion, de-regulation and losses of water resources. 3. Illicit cuttings and degradation of • Improvement and reforestation of degraded forests, forests. establishment of village energy forests on suitable sites. 4. High costs and inadequate knowledge • Provision of fuelwood needs of local people to the extent of alternative energy sources. possible, within the capacity of forests. • Provision of coal at suitable prices. • Assistance in testing/development of other energy sources, such as bio-energy, solar energy. 5. Degradation, low productivity, • Range improvement measures (e.g. water troughs, under-utilization of range resources. re-seeding, fertilization). • Development of forage production on suitable lands. Supporting/development of stall-feeding.
(2) Constrains on conservation, rehabilitation and suitable use of natural resources: • A predominance of south facing slopes and shallow soils. • The large flocks of sheep owned by nomads. • Designless sand mining at foot of unstable and unreached repose angle mountains. • Degraded conditions and low productivity of the significant parts of the forest resources. • High dependency on excessive utilizations of upland resources. • Inadequate attention on local needs during preparation of forest management plans. • Lack of confidence between villagers and governmental agencies. • Insufficient staff capacities of the MEF and other relevant government agencies. • Insufficient collaboration among different government agencies. • Lack of adequate awareness of local communities about causes and consequencies of natural resources degradation and disasters. • Incomplete cadastral surveys and vague borders of the forests and rangelands. Unclear rights of AGM for working on OT (Forest soil without trees- Forest management plan) areas.
(3) Opportunities for conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use of natural resources
B - 111 • Mostly very good, provided villagers are interested and able to act. • The out-migration appears to have had positive effects on the intensity of erosion, and the apparent success of natural regeneration in many places. • Knowledgeness sand mining by TCK. • Natural resources degradation is reversible by adopting appropriate approaches and methods. • There is growing interest in the MC villagers for collaborating with MEF-AGM for undertaking collaborative in conducting soil conservation and afforestation activities. • Existence of wide variety of multipurpose local tree, shrub and grass species for undertaking technically successful and socially acceptable rehabilitation activities.
(4) Level of interest in natural resources conservation: Medium High
(5) Current strategies and contributions of the government agencies: • MEF-AGM has conducted some soil conservation activities on modest scale in the MC areas, along the Latrans stream in Yaylapinar villages during previous years. • Forest villagers in the MC are permitted to collect fuelwood from the forests depending on their capacity in the village area by paying modest charges to MEF-OGM. • MEF-ORKOY provides low interest credit support to forest villagers and cooperatives for increasing their income and for improving relations with the forest organization. • AGM, OGM and MPG contract protection of forest and wildlife conservation areas to forest village communities by making certain payments to village budget. AGM has also started recently contracting of soil conservation works and tending of such areas to the village communities that have interest and capacity for undertaking such activities. • Cadastre and border delineation works for range areas are being undertaken by MARA. • Stream bed and bank rehabilitation activities are being taken by GDRS and DSI. • Increased interest and efforts to involve local people in natural resources conservation and rehabilitation in combination with livelihood development among different units of MEF.
B - 112 B.5.5.3 Proposed activities
APPROX ACTIVITY LOCATION COMMENTS . AREA 1. Soil Conservation (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Upper Kuru, Latrans Implement Activities1,3,4,5,6 193 ha stream and 7 (Activity 2): Afforestation, (Type 1) Upper Ahsunicler 150 ha Implement Activities1,3,4,6 and stream 7 (Activity 3): Afforestation, (Type 2) Middle Gez strem 100 ha Implement Activities1,3,4,6 and 7 (Activity 4): Re-greening (Type 1) Downstream of Implement Activities1,3,4,6 and 350 ha Mitibey stream 7 (Activity 5): Re-greening (Type 2) Downstream of Buyuk Implement Activities1,3,4,6 and 200 ha stream 7 (Activity6): Gully protection (gabion type) (Activity 7): Gully protection (brush type)
2. Riverside Plantation Masat stream 1.4 ha
DEFINITION OF ACTIVITIES; 1.Soil Conservation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Afforestation (type-1) Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species Afforestation (type-2) Plant local tree species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-1) Plant local shrub and grass species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-2) Plant Quercus species seed in a block Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (brush type) Gully plugging using brush walls 2. Afforestation Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species 3. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and enrich by planting Seedlings 4. Rehabilitation of Degraded Coppice Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and distribute seed for Enrichment 5. Energy Forest Plantation Planting of fast-growing species for fuelwood production 6. Rangeland Rehabilitation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rangeland improvement Controlled grazing, fertilizer applications, seed sowing and water troughs Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (brush type) Gully plugging using brush walls 7. Riverside Plantations Zigzag planting of poplars, willows and other suitable species to stabilize soils
B - 113 B.5.5.4 Activities, Effects, Benefits, Inputs and Cost for Project QUANTIFIED BENEFITS COST OF ACTIVITY FOR VILLAGERS & QUANTITY OF INPUTS COMENTS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS INPUTS Natural Resources 1. Soil Conservation -Decreasing soil erosion Activities include: -Increasing vegetation coverage 1. Natural regeneration -Ensuring better conditions for 2. Afforestation wildlife 993 ha 1,220 BTL 3. Re-greening -Ensuring employment 4. Gully plugging -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of the landscape.
2. Riverside -Protection of inhabitant’s Plantation livelihood and farmland -Environmental improvement 1.4 ha 9 BTL -Ensuring employment -Increasing aesthetics value of the landscape.
Sub-total cost 1,229 BTL
B.5.6 The Micro-Catchment OL-04 Rehabilitation and Management Project
B.5.6.1 Condition of Micro-Catchment
(1) Location and Geographical Conditions of the MC The micro-catchments OL-04 (hereinafter to as the MC) is located roughly south-eastern of the Coruh river basin, and constitutes a part of the upper most catchments of the Oltu river which is one of the major tributaries of the Coruh river. Total area of the MC is some 38,500 hectares. The main administrative center for the MC is Oltu municipality, it is located roughly east and northeast in the MC. The MC is approximately 31 km long east to west and 25 km wide north to south. Near the center of the MC, the Sivri river passes out from east to west, and flow into the Oltu river at Oltu municipality. The Sirvi river rapidly flows down at the mean incline of 1:35. The altitude of the MC is between 1,300m and 2,900m above sea level. The MC consists of 11 significant tributaries to the Sivri river: the Buyuk, Cevizli, Igdelinin, Dagin, Dagun, Karantas, Ayarin, Sivri, Sidigin, Sekincukin, and Kadaagach streams.
The MC is characterized by relatively gentle topography, especially along the Kadaagach, Dagin, Igdelinun, and Sivri streams as they are forming a huge active colluvial fan. However, the Dagin stream consists of wide variety of rock types and topography. The MC has 42% of moderate slope land and 29% of gentle slope land. There is 22% of Steep slope land, too. The climate is characteristically hot in summer and cold with snowfall in winter. The mean annual temperature is 10.2℃, the mean maximum temperature is 22.8 ℃ (August), the mean minimum temperature is -4.0 ℃ (March) and the mean annual rainfall is about 380 mm. Access to most of the villages in the MC is good as the villages located relatively near the asphalted road No.25-03, which runs north-eastern and south-western along the Sivri river.
B - 114 (2) Natural Resources and Present Land Use For the land use pattern of the MC, the dominant land use is rangeland (48%), followed by arable land (21%), forest (16%), and transitional woodland and shrub (8%) based on 2001 satellite image analysis data. According to the management plan, xx% is high forest (type NK), and most of the remaining area is degraded high forest (BK). There are no areas of normal coppice forest (Bt) or degraded coppice forest (BBt). There are no officially-designated Protected Areas within the MC. However, a wild life conservation area is located adjacent to the western end of the MC. Wildlife species such as bears and wild boars are indicated by the villagers as they harm agricultural production by raiding beehives and crop fields.
The predominant geological type is Upper Cretaceous, Flysh, except in the northern part, which is predominantly Upper Cretaceous, Volcanic Facies. The most common soils are Brown soils, Brown forest soils and Colluvial soils, which are generally infertile and shallow. Based on the GDRS digital data, about 58% of the MC has Class 3 soil erosion (Severely), and most of the rest of the MC is in Class 4 (Very severely). Perhaps most of the visible soil erosion is reversible using conventional techniques, except in and around Orcuk. Removal of coarse rocky debris would be extremely expensive. The Kadaagach, Dagin, Igdelinun, and Sivri streams are delivering large quantities of debris to the Oltu River, and the streams are generally clear. About 88% of the MC is in Land Capability Classes VI, VII and VIII by GDRS.
B.5.6.2 Major problems, Development needs, Constraints and Opportunities
(1) Major problems: • Natural disaster (e.g. floods) and soil erosion due to fragile site (e.g. geology, soil, topography) and over-use/degradation of forest and range resources. • Destruction/degradation of forests by local people to meet their energy needs for heating and cooking.
Priority problems identified and possible solutions as suggested by villagers Problems Solutions 1. Natural disasters (e.g. floods, avalanches, • Soil conservation measures on degraded area. landslides). • Riverbed rehabilitation (civil engineering 2. Soil erosion, de-regulation and losses of measures), river bank rehabilitation (civil water resources. engineering structures, gulley plantation).
3. Illicit cuttings and degradation of forests. • Improvement and reforestation of degraded forests, 4. High costs and inadequate knowledge of establishment of village energy forests on suitable alternative energy sources. sites. • Provision of fuelwood needs of local people to the extent possible, within the capacity of forests. • Provision of coal at suitable prices. • Assistance in testing/development of other energy sources, such as bio-energy, solar energy. 5. Degradation, low productivity, • Range improvement measures (e.g. water troughs, under-utilization of range resources. re-seeding, fertilization). • Development of forage production on suitable lands. • Supporting/development of stall-feeding.
B - 115 (2) Constrains on conservation, rehabilitation and suitable use of natural resources: • Naturally unstable rocks and soils, harsh topographical conditioned. • Degraded conditions and low productivity of the significant parts of the forest resources. • High dependency on excessive utilizations of upland resources. • Inadequate attention on local needs during preparation of forest management plans. • Lack of confidence between villagers and governmental agencies. • Insufficient staff capacities of the MEF and other relevant government agencies. • Insufficient collaboration among different government agencies. • Lack of adequate awareness of local communities about causes and consequencies of natural resources degradation and disasters. • Incomplete cadastral surveys and vague borders of the forests and rangelands. Unclear rights of AGM for working on OT (Forest soil without trees- Forest management plan) areas.
(3) Opportunities for conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use of natural resources: • Natural resources degradation is reversible by adopting appropriate approaches and methods. • There is growing interest in the MC villagers for collaborating with MEF-AGM for undertaking collaborative in conducting soil conservation and afforestation activities. • Existence of wide variety of multipurpose local tree, shrub and grass species for undertaking technically successful and socially acceptable rehabilitation activities.
(4) Level of interest in natural resources conservation: Medium
(5) Current strategies and contributions of the government agencies: • MEF-AGM has conducted some soil conservation activities on modest scale in the MC areas, including Ballica, Basakli, and Ozdere villages during previous years. • Forest villagers in the MC are permitted to collect fuelwood from the forests depending on their capacity in the village area by paying modest charges to MEF-OGM. • MEF-ORKOY provides low interest credit support to forest villagers and cooperatives for increasing their income and for improving relations with the forest organization. • AGM, OGM and MPG contract protection of forest and wildlife conservation areas to forest village communities by making certain payments to village budget. AGM has also started recently contracting of soil conservation works and tending of such areas to the village communities that have interest and capacity for undertaking such activities. • Cadastre and border delineation works for range areas are being undertaken by MARA. • Stream bed and bank rehabilitation activities are being taken by GDRS and DSI. • Increased interest and efforts to involve local people in natural resources conservation and rehabilitation in combination with livelihood development among different units of MEF.
B - 116 B.5.6.3 Proposed activities
APPROX ACTIVITY LOCATION COMMENTS . AREA 1. Soil Conservation (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Upper Sirvi Stream 683 ha Implement Activities 1,3,6 and 7 (Activity 2): Afforestation, (Type 1) Upper Dagin Stream 407 ha Implement Activities 1,3,6 and 7 (Activity 3): Afforestation, (Type 2) (Activity 4): Re-greening (Type 1) (Activity 5): Re-greening (Type 2) (Activity6): Gully protection (gabion type) (Activity 7): Gully protection (brush type)
2. Afforestation Upper Sekincukin 126 ha Stream
3. Energy Forest Plantation Upper Sirvi Stream 300 ha Upper Sekincukin 100 ha
4. Rangeland Rehabilitation (Activity 1): Natural regeneration Upper Sirvi Stream 1,632 ha Implement Activities 1,2,3 and 4 (Activity 2): Rangeland improvement Upper Dagin 190 ha Implement Activities 1,2,3 and 4 (Activity 3): Gully plugging (stone walls) Upper Igdelinin 358 ha Implement Activities 1,2,3 and 4 (Activity 4): Gully plugging(brush walls) Upper Sekincukin 461 ha Implement Activities 1,2,3 and 4
5. Riverside Plantation Upper Sirvi Stream 0.2 ha L= 500m x 2 Upper Dagin 0.4 ha L=1,000m x 2
DEFINITION OF ACTIVITIES; 1.Soil Conservation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Afforestation (type-1) Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species Afforestation (type-2) Plant local tree species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-1) Plant local shrub and grass species, usually in a planting hole Re-greening (type-2) Plant Quercus species seed in a block Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (brush type) Gully plugging using brush walls 2. Afforestation Conventional terracing and planting of forest tree species 3. Rehabilitation of Degraded High Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and enrich by planting Seedlings 4. Rehabilitation of Degraded Coppice Forest Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rehabilitation Rejuvenation cutting, thinning and distribute seed for Enrichment 5. Energy Forest Plantation Planting of fast-growing species for fuelwood production 6. Rangeland Rehabilitation Natural Regeneration Encourage natural regeneration, if necessary with fencing Rangeland improvement Controlled grazing, fertilizer applications, seed sowing and water troughs Gully plugging (gabion type) Gully plugging using gabion walls Gully plugging (brush type) Gully plugging using brush walls 7. Riverside Plantations Zigzag planting of poplars, willows and other suitable species to stabilize soils
B - 117 B.5.6.4 Activities, Effects, Benefits, Inputs and Cost for Project
QUANTIFIED BENEFITS ACTIVITY FOR VILLAGERS & QUANTITY COST OF COMENTS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS OF INPUTS INPUTS Natural Resources 1. Soil -Decreasing soil erosion Activities include: Conservation -Increasing vegetation coverage 1. Afforestation -Ensuring better conditions 2. Re-greening for wildlife 1,090ha 1,770 BTL 3. Gully plugging -Ensuring employment 4. Natural regeneration -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of the landscape. 2. Afforestation -Declining soil erosion Pinus sylvestris -Increasing both quality and quantity of tree growing stock -Ensuring better conditions for wildlife 126ha 228 BTL -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetics value of the landscape 3.Energy Forest -Declining soil erosion Rehabilitation -Increasing vegetation coverage -Increasing both quality and 300 968 BTL quantity of tree stock -Increasing quantity of firewood subsidy 4. Rangeland -Declining soil erosion Activities include: Rehabilitation -Increasing vegetation coverage 1. Natural regeneration -Increasing fodder production 2. Rangeland improvement -Ensuring better conditions 3. Gully plugging for wildlife 2,641ha 1,538 BTL 4. Watering troughs -Ensuring employment -Improving water balance -Increasing aesthetic value of landscape 5.Riverside -Declining soil erosion Plantation -Increasing both quality and 0.6 ha 4 BTL quantity of tree growing stock Sub-total cost 4,158 ha 4,508 BTL
B - 118
B.5.7 Proposed Activities Expenditure for Rehabilitation and Management of Natural Resources
Table B.5.7-1 Summary of Proposed Activities
Activities BT-04 MC-03 TR-06 UC-14 UC-03 OL-04 Total (Savsat) (Yusufeli) (Uzundere) (Ispir) (Bayburt) (Oltu) Scale Cost Scale Cost Scale Cost Scale Cost Scale Cost Scale Cost Scale Cost (ha) (BTL) (ha) (BTL) (ha) (BTL) (ha) (BTL) (ha) (BTL) (ha) (BTL) (ha) (BTL) 1. Soil Conservation - - 831 1,063 1,160 1,105 728 817 993 1,220 1,090 1,770 4,802 5,975 2. Afforestation 133 240 - - - - 93 168 - - 126 228 352 636 3. Rehabilitation of Degraded - - 838 352 172 93 157 48 - - - - 1,167 493 High Forest 4. Rehabilitation of Degraded 273 189 394 269 - - 207 57 - - - - 874 515 Coppice Forest 5. Energy Forest Plantation 353 613 - - - - 419 726 - - 558 968 1,330 2,307 6. Rangeland Rehabilitation 269 219 - - 175 189 658 374 - - 2,641 1,538 3,743 2,320 7. Riverside Plantation 0.8 5 - - 0.6 4 - - 1.4 9 0.6 4 3.4 22 B - 119 Total 1,028.8 1,266 2,063 1,684 1,508 1,391 2,262 2,190 994 1,229 4,416 4,508 12,271.4 12,268